[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9960-H9978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3630, MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF AND
JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 502, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3630) to provide incentives for the creation of jobs,
and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and I have a
motion at the desk.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendments.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
Senate amendments:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary
Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX RELIEF
Sec. 101. Extension of payroll tax holiday.
TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Temporary extension of unemployment compensation provisions.
Sec. 202. Extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act.
TITLE III--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF HEALTH PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Medicare physician payment update.
Sec. 302. 2-month extension of MMA section 508 reclassifications.
Sec. 303. Extension of Medicare work geographic adjustment floor.
Sec. 304. Extension of exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps.
Sec. 305. Extension of payment for technical component of certain
physician pathology services.
Sec. 306. Extension of ambulance add-ons.
Sec. 307. Extension of physician fee schedule mental health add-on
payment.
Sec. 308. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision.
Sec. 309. Extending minimum payment for bone mass measurement.
Sec. 310. Extension of the qualifying individual (QI) program.
Sec. 311. Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA).
Sec. 312. Extension of the temporary assistance for needy families
program.
TITLE IV--MORTGAGE FEES AND PREMIUMS
Sec. 401. Guarantee Fees.
Sec. 402. FHA guarantee fees.
TITLE V--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Keystone XL Pipeline
Sec. 501. Permit for Keystone XL pipeline.
Subtitle B--Budgetary Provisions
Sec. 511. Senate point of order against an emergency designation.
Sec. 512. PAYGO scorecard estimates.
TITLE I--TEMPORARY PAYROLL TAX RELIEF
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 601 of the Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010 (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended to read
as follows:
``(c) Payroll Tax Holiday Period.--The term `payroll tax
holiday period' means--
``(1) in the case of the tax described in subsection
(a)(1), calendar years 2011 and 2012, and
``(2) in the case of the taxes described in subsection
(a)(2), the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending
February 29, 2012.''.
(b) Special Rules for 2012.--Section 601 of such Act (26
U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Special Rules for 2012.--
``(1) Limitation on wages and self-employment income.--In
the case of--
``(A) any taxable year beginning in 2012, subsection (a)(1)
shall only apply with respect to so much of the taxpayer's
self-employment income (as defined in section 1402(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) as does not exceed the excess
(if any) of--
``(i) $18,350, over
``(ii) the amount of wages and compensation taken into
account under subparagraph (B), and
``(B) any remuneration received during the portion of the
payroll tax holiday period occurring during 2012, subsection
(a)(2) shall only apply to so much of the sum of the
taxpayer's wages (as defined in section 3121(a) of such Code)
and compensation (as defined section 3231(e) of such Code) as
does not exceed $18,350.
``(2) Coordination with deduction for employment taxes.--In
the case of a taxable year beginning in 2012, subparagraph
(A) of subsection (b)(2) shall be applied as if it read as
follows:
`` `(A) the sum of--
`` `(i) 59.6 percent of the portion of such taxes
attributable to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) of such
Code (determined after the application of this section) on so
much of self-employment income (as defined in section 1402(b)
of such Code) as does not exceed the amount of self-
employment income described in paragraph (1)(A), plus
`` `(ii) one-half of the portion of such taxes attributable
to the tax imposed by section 1401(a) of such Code
(determined without regard to this section) on self-
employment income (as so defined) in excess of such amount,
plus'.''
(c) Technical Amendments.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(b)
of such Act (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``164(f)'',
(2) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``1401(a)'' in
subparagraph (A), and
(3) by inserting ``of such Code'' after ``1401(b)'' in
subparagraph (B).
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to remuneration
received, and taxable years beginning, after December 31,
2011.
(2) Technical amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (c) shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of section 601 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.
TITLE II--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 4007 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``January 3, 2012'' each place it appears
and inserting ``March 6, 2012'';
(B) in the heading for subsection (b)(2), by striking
``january 3, 2012'' and inserting ``march 6, 2012''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``June 9, 2012'' and
inserting ``August 15, 2012''.
(2) Section 2005 of the Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families Act, as contained in Public Law 111-5
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note; 123 Stat. 444), is amended--
(A) by striking ``January 4, 2012'' each place it appears
and inserting ``March 7, 2012''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``June 11, 2012'' and
inserting ``August 15, 2012''.
[[Page H9961]]
(3) Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation Extension
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-449; 26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is
amended by striking ``June 10, 2012'' and inserting ``August
15, 2012''.
(4) Section 203 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
(A) in subsection (d), in the second sentence of the flush
matter following paragraph (2), by striking ``December 31,
2011'' and inserting ``February 29, 2012''; and
(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2011''
and inserting ``February 29, 2012''.
(b) Funding.--Section 4004(e)(1) of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304
note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
``(H) the amendments made by section 201(a)(1) of the
Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011; and''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Tax
Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312).
SEC. 202. EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE RAILROAD
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT.
(a) Extension.--Section 2(c)(2)(D)(iii) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by section 2006 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law
111-5) and as amended by section 9 of the Worker,
Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-92) and section 505 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment
Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-312), is amended--
(1) by striking ``June 30, 2011'' and inserting ``August
31, 2011''; and
(2) by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting
``February 29, 2012''.
(b) Clarification on Authority to Use Funds.--Funds
appropriated under either the first or second sentence of
clause (iv) of section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act shall be available to cover the
cost of additional extended unemployment benefits provided
under such section 2(c)(2)(D) by reason of the amendments
made by subsection (a) as well as to cover the cost of such
benefits provided under such section 2(c)(2)(D), as in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF HEALTH PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE.
Section 1848(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(13) Update for first two months of 2012.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (7)(B), (8)(B),
(9)(B), (10)(B), (11)(B), and (12)(B), in lieu of the update
to the single conversion factor established in paragraph
(1)(C) that would otherwise apply for the period beginning on
January 1, 2012, and ending on February 29, 2012, the update
to the single conversion factor shall be zero percent.
``(B) No effect on computation of conversion factor for
remaining portion of 2012 and subsequent years.--The
conversion factor under this subsection shall be computed
under paragraph (1)(A) for the period beginning on March 1,
2012, and ending on December 31, 2012, and for 2013 and
subsequent years as if subparagraph (A) had never applied.''.
SEC. 302. 2-MONTH EXTENSION OF MMA SECTION 508
RECLASSIFICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 106(a) of division B of the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 1395 note), as
amended by section 117 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), section 124 of
the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-275), sections 3137(a) and 10317 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
148), and section 102(a) of the Medicare and Medicaid
Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is amended by
striking ``September 30, 2011'' and inserting ``November 30,
2011''.
(b) Special Rule for October and November 2011.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of
implementation of the amendment made by subsection (a),
including for purposes of the implementation of paragraph (2)
of section 117(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Extension Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-173), for the period
beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on November 30,
2011, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall use
the hospital wage index that was promulgated by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services in the Federal Register on
August 18, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 51476), and any subsequent
corrections.
(2) Exception.--In determining the wage index applicable to
hospitals that qualify for wage index reclassification, the
Secretary shall, for the period beginning on October 1, 2011,
and ending on November 30, 2011, include the average hourly
wage data of hospitals whose reclassification was extended
pursuant to the amendment made by subsection (a) only if
including such data results in a higher applicable
reclassified wage index. Any revision to hospital wage
indexes made as a result of this paragraph shall not be
effected in a budget neutral manner.
(c) Timeframe for Payments.--The Secretary shall make
payments required under subsections (a) and (b) by not later
than December 31, 2012.
SEC. 303. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE WORK GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT
FLOOR.
Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ``before January 1,
2012'' and inserting ``before March 1, 2012''.
SEC. 304. EXTENSION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR MEDICARE
THERAPY CAPS.
Section 1833(g)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(g)(5)) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and
inserting ``February 29, 2012''.
SEC. 305. EXTENSION OF PAYMENT FOR TECHNICAL COMPONENT OF
CERTAIN PHYSICIAN PATHOLOGY SERVICES.
Section 542(c) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554), as
amended by section 732 of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4
note), section 104 of division B of the Tax Relief and Health
Care Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4 note), section 104 of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-173), section 136 of the Medicare Improvements for
Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275),
section 3104 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Public Law 111-148), and section 105 of the Medicare and
Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is
amended by striking ``and 2011'' and inserting ``2011, and
the first two months of 2012''.
SEC. 306. EXTENSION OF AMBULANCE ADD-ONS.
(a) Ground Ambulance.--Section 1834(l)(13)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(13)(A)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012''; and
(2) in each of clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``January
1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012'' each place it
appears.
(b) Air Ambulance.--Section 146(b)(1) of the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-275), as amended by sections 3105(b) and 10311(b) of
Public Law 111-148 and section 106(b) of the Medicare and
Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting
``February 29, 2012''.
(c) Super Rural Ambulance.--Section 1834(l)(12)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(12)(A)) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2012'' and inserting ``March 1, 2012''.
SEC. 307. EXTENSION OF PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE MENTAL HEALTH
ADD-ON PAYMENT.
Section 138(a)(1) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), as amended by
section 3107 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Public Law 111-148) and section 107 of the Medicare and
Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting
``February 29, 2012''.
SEC. 308. EXTENSION OF OUTPATIENT HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.
Section 1833(t)(7)(D)(i) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395l(t)(7)(D)(i)), as amended by section 3121(a) of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148) and section 108 of the Medicare and Medicaid
Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-309), is amended--
(1) in subclause (II)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``January 1, 2012''
and inserting ``March 1, 2012''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``or 2011'' and
inserting ``2011, or the first two months of 2012''; and
(2) in subclause (III)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``2009, and'' and
all that follows through ``for which'' and inserting ``2009,
and before March 1, 2012, for which''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``2010, and'' and
all that follows through ``the preceding'' and inserting
``2010, and before March 1, 2012, the preceding''.
SEC. 309. EXTENDING MINIMUM PAYMENT FOR BONE MASS
MEASUREMENT.
Section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``and 2011'' and
inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months of 2012''; and
(B) in paragraph (6)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``and 2011'' and inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months
of 2012''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and 2011'' and
inserting ``, 2011, and the first 2 months of 2012''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(iv)(IV), by striking ``or
2011'' and inserting ``, 2011, or the first 2 months of
2012''.
SEC. 310. EXTENSION OF THE QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL (QI)
PROGRAM.
(a) Extension.--Section 1902(a)(10)(E)(iv) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(E)(iv)) is amended by
striking ``December 2011'' and inserting ``February 2012''.
(b) Extending Total Amount Available for Allocation.--
Section 1933(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-3(g)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (O);
(B) in subparagraph (P), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(Q) for the period that begins on January 1, 2012, and
ends on February 29, 2012, the total allocation amount is
$150,000,000.''.
SEC. 311. EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE (TMA).
Sections 1902(e)(1)(B) and 1925(f) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(1)(B), 1396r-
[[Page H9962]]
6(f)) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and
inserting ``February 29, 2012''.
SEC. 312. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES PROGRAM.
Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section
1108(b) of the Social Security Act (other than under
subsections (a)(3) and (b) of section 403 of such Act) shall
continue through February 29, 2012, in the manner authorized
for fiscal year 2011, and out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such
purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this
authority through the applicable portion of the second
quarter of fiscal year 2012 at the pro rata portion of the
level provided for such activities through the second quarter
of fiscal year 2011.
TITLE IV--MORTGAGE FEES AND PREMIUMS
SEC. 401. GUARANTEE FEES.
Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of title XIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by
adding after section 1326 (12 U.S.C. 4546) the following new
section:
``SEC. 1327. ENTERPRISE GUARANTEE FEES.
``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Guarantee fee.--The term `guarantee fee'--
``(A) means a fee described in subsection (b); and
``(B) includes--
``(i) the guaranty fee charged by the Federal National
Mortgage Association with respect to mortgage-backed
securities; and
``(ii) the management and guarantee fee charged by the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation with respect to
participation certificates.
``(2) Average fees.--The term `average fees' means the
average contractual fee rate of single-family guaranty
arrangements by an enterprise entered into during 2011, plus
the recognition of any up-front cash payments over an
estimated average life, expressed in terms of basis points.
Such definition shall be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the annual report on guarantee fees by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency.
``(b) Increase.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Phased increase required.--Subject to subsection (c),
the Director shall require each enterprise to charge a
guarantee fee in connection with any guarantee of the timely
payment of principal and interest on securities, notes, and
other obligations based on or backed by mortgages on
residential real properties designed principally for
occupancy of from 1 to 4 families, consummated after the date
of enactment of this section.
``(B) Amount.--The amount of the increase required under
this section shall be determined by the Director to
appropriately reflect the risk of loss, as well the cost of
capital allocated to similar assets held by other fully
private regulated financial institutions, but such amount
shall be not less than an average increase of 10 basis points
for each origination year or book year above the average fees
imposed in 2011 for such guarantees. The Director shall
prohibit an enterprise from offsetting the cost of the fee to
mortgage originators, borrowers, and investors by decreasing
other charges, fees, or premiums, or in any other manner.
``(2) Authority to limit offer of guarantee.--The Director
shall prohibit an enterprise from consummating any offer for
a guarantee to a lender for mortgage-backed securities, if--
``(A) the guarantee is inconsistent with the requirements
of this section; or
``(B) the risk of loss is allowed to increase, through
lowering of the underwriting standards or other means, for
the primary purpose of meeting the requirements of this
section.
``(3) Deposit in treasury.--Amounts received from fee
increases imposed under this section shall be deposited
directly into the United States Treasury, and shall be
available only to the extent provided in subsequent
appropriations Acts. The fees charged pursuant to this
section shall not be considered a reimbursement to the
Federal Government for the costs or subsidy provided to an
enterprise.
``(c) Phase-in.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may provide for compliance
with subsection (b) by allowing each enterprise to increase
the guarantee fee charged by the enterprise gradually over
the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
section, in a manner sufficient to comply with this section.
In determining a schedule for such increases, the Director
shall--
``(A) provide for uniform pricing among lenders;
``(B) provide for adjustments in pricing based on risk
levels; and
``(C) take into consideration conditions in financial
markets.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be interpreted to undermine the minimum increase
required by subsection (b).
``(d) Information Collection and Annual Analysis.--The
Director shall require each enterprise to provide to the
Director, as part of its annual report submitted to
Congress--
``(1) a description of--
``(A) changes made to up-front fees and annual fees as part
of the guarantee fees negotiated with lenders;
``(B) changes to the riskiness of the new borrowers
compared to previous origination years or book years; and
``(C) any adjustments required to improve for future
origination years or book years, in order to be in complete
compliance with subsection (b); and
``(2) an assessment of how the changes in the guarantee
fees described in paragraph (1) met the requirements of
subsection (b).
``(e) Enforcement.--
``(1) Required adjustments.--Based on the information from
subsection (d) and any other information the Director deems
necessary, the Director shall require an enterprise to make
adjustments in its guarantee fee in order to be in compliance
with subsection (b).
``(2) Noncompliance penalty.--An enterprise that has been
found to be out of compliance with subsection (b) for any 2
consecutive years shall be precluded from providing any
guarantee for a period, determined by rule of the Director,
but in no case less than 1 year.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be interpreted as preventing the Director from
initiating and implementing an enforcement action against an
enterprise, at a time the Director deems necessary, under
other existing enforcement authority.
``(f) Expiration.--The provisions of this section shall
expire on October 1, 2021.''.
SEC. 402. FHA GUARANTEE FEES.
(a) Amendment.--Section 203(c)(2) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(C)(i) In addition to the premiums under subparagraphs
(A) and (B), the Secretary shall establish and collect annual
premium payments for any mortgage for which the Secretary
collects an annual premium payment under subparagraph (B), in
an amount described in clause (ii).
``(ii)(I) Subject to subclause (II), with respect to a
mortgage, the amount described in this clause is 10 basis
points of the remaining insured principal balance (excluding
the portion of the remaining balance attributable to the
premium collected under subparagraph (A) and without taking
into account delinquent payments or prepayments).
``(II) During the 2-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall increase
the number of basis points of the annual premium payment
collected under this subparagraph incrementally, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary, until the number of
basis points of the annual premium payment collected under
this subparagraph is equal to the number described in
subclause (I).''.
(b) Prospective Repeal.--Section 203(c)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) is amended by striking
subparagraph (C), as added by subsection (a), effective on
October 1, 2021.
(c) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days before the
date on which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
makes a determination under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives a report that--
(1) explains the basis for the determination; and
(2) identifies the date on which the Secretary plans to
make the determination.
TITLE V--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Keystone XL Pipeline
SEC. 501. PERMIT FOR KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall
grant a permit under Executive Order 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301
note; relating to issuance of permits with respect to certain
energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings
on the international boundaries of the United States) for the
Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September
19, 2008 (including amendments).
(b) Exception.--
(1) In general.--The President shall not be required to
grant the permit under subsection (a) if the President
determines that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the
national interest.
(2) Report.--If the President determines that the Keystone
XL pipeline is not in the national interest under paragraph
(1), the President shall, not later than 15 days after the
date of the determination, submit to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the
Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the
House of Representatives a report that provides a
justification for determination, including consideration of
economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade,
and environmental factors.
(3) Effect of no finding or action.--If a determination is
not made under paragraph (1) and no action is taken by the
President under subsection (a) not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the permit for the
Keystone XL pipeline described in subsection (a) that meets
the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) shall be in
effect by operation of law.
(c) Requirements.--The permit granted under subsection (a)
shall require the following:
(1) The permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal
and State laws (including regulations) and all applicable
industrial codes regarding the construction, connection,
operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.
(2) The permittee shall obtain all requisite permits from
Canadian authorities and relevant Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies.
(3) The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to
prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impact or
disruption of historic properties in connection with the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States
facilities.
(4) For the purpose of the permit issued under subsection
(a) (regardless of any modifications under subsection (d))--
[[Page H9963]]
(A) the final environmental impact statement issued by the
Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);
(B) any modification required by the Secretary of State to
the Plan described in paragraph (5)(A) shall not require
supplementation of the final environmental impact statement
described in that paragraph; and
(C) no further Federal environmental review shall be
required.
(5) The construction, operation, and maintenance of the
facilities shall be in all material respects similar to that
described in the application described in subsection (a) and
in accordance with--
(A) the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures
agreed to by the permittee in the Construction Mitigation and
Reclamation Plan found in appendix B of the final
environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of
State on August 26, 2011, subject to the modification
described in subsection (d);
(B) the special conditions agreed to between the permittee
and the Administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation
found in appendix U of the final environmental impact
statement described in subparagraph (A);
(C) if the modified route submitted by the Governor of
Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) crosses the Sand Hills
region, the measures agreed to by the permittee for the Sand
Hills region found in appendix H of the final environmental
impact statement described in subparagraph (A); and
(D) the stipulations identified in appendix S of the final
environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A).
(6) Other requirements that are standard industry practice
or commonly included in Federal permits that are similar to a
permit issued under subsection (a).
(d) Modification.--The permit issued under subsection (a)
shall require--
(1) the reconsideration of routing of the Keystone XL
pipeline within the State of Nebraska;
(2) a review period during which routing within the State
of Nebraska may be reconsidered and the route of the Keystone
XL pipeline through the State altered with any accompanying
modification to the Plan described in subsection (c)(5)(A);
and
(3) the President--
(A) to coordinate review with the State of Nebraska and
provide any necessary data and reasonable technical
assistance material to the review process required under this
subsection; and
(B) to approve the route within the State of Nebraska that
has been submitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor
of Nebraska.
(e) Effect of No Approval.--If the President does not
approve the route within the State of Nebraska submitted by
the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) not later
than 10 days after the date of submission, the route
submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection
(d)(3)(B) shall be considered approved, pursuant to the terms
of the permit described in subsection (a) that meets the
requirements of subsection (c) and this subsection, by
operation of law.
(f) Private Property Savings Clause.--Nothing in this
section alters the Federal, State, or local processes or
conditions in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
that are necessary to secure access from private property
owners to construct the Keystone XL pipeline.
Subtitle B--Budgetary Provisions
SEC. 511. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST AN EMERGENCY
DESIGNATION.
Section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended by--
(1) redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Senate Point of Order Against an Emergency
Designation.--
``(1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report, if a point of order is made by a
Senator against an emergency designation in that measure,
that provision making such a designation shall be stricken
from the measure and may not be offered as an amendment from
the floor.
``(2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
``(A) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
``(B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this
subsection.
``(3) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of paragraph (1), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(4) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
paragraph (1) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``(5) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.''.
SEC. 512. PAYGO SCORECARD ESTIMATES.
The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on
either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act A bill to extend
the payroll tax holiday, unemployment compensation, Medicare
physician payment, provide for the consideration of the
Keystone XL pipeline, and for other purposes''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Camp moves that the House disagree to the Senate
amendments to H.R. 3630 and request a conference with the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the motion
shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The differences between the bipartisan, House-passed Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act and what the Senate did so it could go on
vacation could not be clearer. The House bill puts the American people
first. It provided certainty for middle class families struggling to
make ends meet by extending the middle class holiday; it provided
certainty for those left behind in this economy by extending not only
unemployment benefits for 1 year but also the Nation's welfare program;
it provided certainty to seniors by ensuring their doctors would not
see reimbursement rates slashed by nearly 30 percent; and it provided
incentives for job creators looking for ways to hire more workers by
extending tax relief.
The Senate decided not to do any of this. Worse yet, in a rush to get
home for the holidays, the Senate passed something that is totally
unworkable. Yesterday, the Congress received a letter from the National
Payroll Reporting Consortium, a nonprofit trading association whose
members cover more than one-third of the private-sector workforce.
Their letter says the Senate bill ``could create substantial problems,
confusion, and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S.
employers and employees.''
The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small
business advocacy group in the Nation, representing 350,000 small
business owners nationwide and in every State, has issued a statement
on the Senate bill. They say:
``The 2-month payroll tax holiday would present a number of
complications and costs that would disproportionately affect small
businesses. In addition, many small employers do payroll processing in-
house by hand, and this would require them to spend time to make these
changes.''
With more than 5 million people working in the construction industry,
this is what the Associated General Contractors have said about the
Senate bill:
``This legislation will extend the payroll tax holiday in the most
complex way possible, at the busiest time possible, provide little
benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member companies of the
Associated General Contractors of America the hardest.''
As the Associated General Contractors say, this legislation will
provide little benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member
companies of the
[[Page H9964]]
organization the hardest. This legislation will add more uncertainty,
more confusion for employers and employees, and more complexity,
especially for small employers.
``Any economic benefit derived from the law would likely be eaten up
by the inefficiency and confusion surrounding the bill's
implementation.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that these letters, along with
letters in opposition to the Senate bill from the National Roofing
Contractors Association, which has over 4,000 members and is
represented in every State; the Associated Builders and Contractors,
which represent over 2 million American workers; and the Small Business
Entrepreneurship Council, with over 100,000 members, be entered into
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. RANGEL. Reserving the right to object, and I probably won't
object, but if the chairman is asking to put in the Record the people
that support the awkward position that the majority has taken, my
question would be, would we be allowed to put in the Record those
people who are going through such economic pain and who so badly want
to make certain that they don't get a raise in their taxes, would we be
able to insert the letters that we get saying please don't come home
unless you give us a tax break? I'm asking, maybe, the Parliamentarian
whether or not I would be in order if I asked that.
I certainly think the chairman is in order, but then we all have
received so many letters from our constituents, it's painful, and I
just wanted some equality in terms of how the Record would look years
from now as to how we treated those people who are the most vulnerable.
And I know we all are concerned about that, even though the 2 months
may be inconvenient for the electronic way they do these things, but I
think the pain will be far more severe for those people who would have
a tax increase.
Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1120
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Regular order has been demanded.
Does the gentleman from New York object to the request?
Mr. RANGEL. I said I reserved it. Maybe I didn't make it clear what
my position was. I was reserving the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Regular order has been demanded. Unless the
unanimous-consent request is withdrawn, the gentleman from New York
must either object or withdraw his reservation.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, with all respect to my chairman, I withdraw my
reservation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York withdraws his
reservation of objection.
Without objection, the request is granted.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman from New York for withdrawing.
These letters, many of them were written to both parties, both
leaders. I think Mr. Levin and I both received these letters. They were
written to the Congress. It's routine that we do these. And on his own
time the gentleman may do as he wishes.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, our economy is too weak and the American
people have been struggling for far too long for Congress not to work
out our differences. America is not on vacation, nor should the Senate
be. We have 2 weeks to find a solution and send something to the
President for his signature. That is what House Republicans are
proposing today.
Let's look at the differences between the House and the Senate.
The House extended unemployment for 13 months. The Senate bill
extended unemployment benefits for only 2 months, meaning an estimated
4 million Americans could lose the extended unemployment benefits next
year they would get under the House bill.
The House reformed the unemployment program to focus it more on
getting people the training and education they need to get back to
work, not just handing out checks. The Senate did not.
The House protected seniors' health care for the next 2 years by
ensuring doctors in the Medicare program don't have their
reimbursements cut by more than 27 percent. The Senate did this for
only 2 months.
The House provided a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday,
ensuring a worker earning $50,000 next year has $1,000 more in their
pocket. The Senate did this for only 2 months, meaning that same worker
would have less than $200 in their pocket, or $800 less in take-home
pay than under the House-passed bill.
The House included a pay freeze for Members of Congress and civilian
Federal workers. The Senate did not.
The House put an end to welfare benefits being accessed at ATMs
located in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. The Senate did not.
The House protected Social Security by reducing overpayments. The
Senate did not.
The House included a provision that saves taxpayers $9 billion by
cracking down on fraud and abuse that is known to exist in a refundable
tax credit program. The Senate did not.
The House provided for economic growth and job creation in the high-
tech industry through spectrum auctions. The Senate did not.
The House cut taxes to promote business investment and hiring. The
Senate did not.
Mr. Speaker, while it may sound like there are great differences
between the House and Senate bill, it's not a difference over policy.
It's simply a difference between the House deciding to act and the
Senate deciding not to act on so many items.
The House bill includes commonsense reforms the American people want,
and it adopts a number of the President's legislative initiatives which
represent the bipartisan cooperation the American people are demanding.
All told, 90 percent of the House bill is paid for with policies the
President has endorsed in one form or another.
So what's really standing in our way? I've heard the President's
people say that this breaks the agreement over the discretionary caps
in the Budget Control Act, but look at that talking point. Those caps
are adjusted only because we are proposing, as the President has
before, to freeze the pay of Members of Congress and other Federal
workers. Do the President and the Senate really want to risk
unemployment benefits, a middle class tax cut, and reimbursement to
doctors treating seniors and those with disabilities because they don't
want to freeze the pay for Members of Congress and Federal workers?
Mr. Speaker, it's not too late. I urge all of my colleagues to
support a 1-year extension of the payroll tax holiday, 1 year of
unemployment benefits with critical reforms, and a 2-year extension of
reimbursements for Medicare doctors.
I urge my Democrat colleagues to name conference committee members to
resolve the differences between the two bills. Conference committees
are a Jeffersonian concept, and we would be wise to follow the model
laid out by our Founding Fathers. If the Senate agrees to work
together, we will help get the American people back to work and get
those struggling in this economy the help they need.
Associated Builders
and Contractors, Inc.,
Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders: On behalf of Associated Builders and
Contractors (ABC), a national association with 75 chapters
representing more than 23,000 merit shop construction and
construction-related firms with nearly two million employees,
I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3630 as
amended by the Senate last week.
Whether Congress ultimately chooses to extend these various
provisions, the proposed two month stop-gap measure merely
serves to delay the inevitable tough decisions, compounding
the climate of uncertainty that continues to impact small
businesses. This sort of temporary fix underscores Congress'
uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy and causes more
harm than good for America's job creators.
Moreover, a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday
creates an untenable administrative burden for employers in
the construction industry and beyond. In a letter sent today
to leaders of the tax writing committees, the National
Payroll Reporting
[[Page H9965]]
Consortium warned of ``substantial problems, confusion and
costs'' associated with the extension's implementation.
America's small businesses should not be punished for
Congress' inability to do its job. Instead of passing the
buck for another two months, the House and Senate must work
together to determine their policies for the full year and
provide some semblance of certainty for the companies driving
our economy.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Burr,
Vice President, Federal Affairs.
____
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
Arlington, VA, December 19, 2011.
Re Oppose the two-month payroll tax holiday provision in H.R.
3630
Hon. Dave Camp,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Camp: Please oppose the two-month
payroll tax holiday provision in H.R. 3630. This legislation
will extend the payroll tax holiday in the most complex way
possible, at the busiest time possible, provide little
benefit to taxpayers and unfairly hit the small member
companies of the Associated General Contractors of America
(AGC) the hardest. This legislation will add more
uncertainty, more confusion (for employers and employees),
more complexity (especially for small employers) and provide
a maximum tax reduction of only $367. Any economic benefit
derived from the law would likely be eaten up by the
inefficiency and confusion surrounding the bill's
implementation.
There are more than five million people employed in the
construction industry. Members of the AGC tend to be small
businesses. Many of them prepare their own payroll using
programs that will need to be modified by the software
vendors and then updated software must be installed on the
contractors systems to ensure proper withholding is taken. If
they are lucky enough to have a payroll company that handles
their payroll processing, then the payroll companies will
have to modify their programs to account for the new changes.
Construction companies and payroll companies are not idle
this time of year. They are doing year-end financials and
producing the W-2 forms that construction employees rely on
to file their tax returns. If companies are not lucky enough,
big enough or profitable enough to have a payroll company,
they will be forced to manually modify payroll for all
employees, check their work and remit the appropriate amount
to the IRS, which can impose hefty penalties for errors in
withholding. Again, this is during the holidays, while
finalizing their financials and preparing W-2s for their
employees.
The IRS will have to issue guidance on this change. That
guidance will lead to delays in implementing the law and
could add additional complexity above and beyond what is in
the statute. The taxable wage limit of $18,350 and a two-
month payroll tax holiday appears needlessly arbitrary. It
will complicate coordination of the IRS Form 941 that
employers have to file quarterly and will likely require that
it be redesigned in the first quarter of the year.
Congress had a full year to reach agreement on whether to
extend the payroll tax holiday. Congress seems to be ready to
extend the holiday for a full year. The two-month extension
is an arbitrary and complicated, half-baked, solution to the
problem of Congress not getting its act together in a timely
fashion. If everyone agrees that the economy needs rational
and decisive decision-making to revive it, why would you
deliver just the opposite in H.R. 3630? Please oppose the
two-month payroll tax holiday. Give employers and employees
the certainty they need to make sound personal and business
decisions for the entire year.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director Government Affairs.
____
National Federation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2011.
NFIB Expresses Significant Concern About Payroll Tax Impact on Small
Business
``The two month payroll tax holiday would present a number
of complications and costs that would disproportionately
affect small businesses,'' said Brad Close, NFIB Vice
President for Public Policy. ``Programming and software to
support the new taxable wage limit may not be available for
small businesses at the beginning of the year and could
present challenges for payroll processors. In addition, many
small employers do payroll processing in-house by hand, and
this would require them to spend time to make these changes.
Employers that do not have correct withholding calculations
would need to figure out how much more to collect from
employees and amend employment tax returns later in the year,
which may also increase their chances for an audit.''
The cost of tax compliance falls heavily on small business.
On average, small businesses spend more than $74 per hour on
meeting their compliance obligations, which represents the
most expensive paperwork burden that the federal government
imposes on small business owners.''
____
National Roofing
Contractors Association
Washington, DC, Dec. 19, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Reid: The National Roofing
Contractors Association (NRCA) strongly urges the House and
Senate to work together to enact a full one-year extension of
the payroll tax rate reduction, like that originally passed
by the House on December 13, 2011 (H.R. 3630). The much-
needed reforms and short-term tax relief provided in that
legislation is important to employees and employers during
these tough economic times.
As was asserted in the letter sent today to the House Ways
and Means and Senate Finance Committees by the National
Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC), NRCA is concerned that
the proposed two-month extension would cause ``substantial
problems, confusion and costs'' for employers. As the NPRC
states, many payroll systems would simply not be able to make
the programming changes that the proposed two-month extension
would require. This would impose an undue burden on employers
in the form of logistical difficulties and costs.
Rather than enacting a two-month extension, NRCA urges
Congress to instead follow the traditional and appropriate
procedures and allow the House and Senate to enact policies
that will last the full year so that businesses have
predictable, certain policies with which to deal.
NRCA commends you for your leadership and continued efforts
on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kent Tolley,
Quality Tile Roofing, Inc.,
President, NRCA.
____
Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council,
Oakton, VA, Dec. 19, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, United States House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid: politically
expedient solutions that address legislative emergencies
often end up having unintended or costly consequences. Such
is the case with the proposed two-month extension of the
reduced payroll tax rate and its potential impact on
America's small employers and the economy at large.
On behalf of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
(SBE Council) and its 100,000 members, we urge the House and
Senate to agree on a full year extension of the payroll tax
reduction. While SBE Council believes that the payroll tax
cut itself is doing very little to stimulate the economy and
supports solutions that permanently reform the tax system
through lower rates on entrepreneurs and investment, we need
to proactively protect our members against potentially higher
payroll costs and the uncertainty that the two-month
extension would generate.
In a letter to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance
Committees, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium wrote
that ``insufficient lead time'' to implement changes mandated
by H.R. 3630 ``could create substantial problems, confusion
and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S.
employers and employees.'' SBE Council agrees with this
assessment. Unfortunately, small businesses would bear the
costs of the uncertainties and complex changes that face
payroll processors given a two-month extension. Small
businesses that don't use payroll companies also face
complexity and a significant cost burden.
The confusion that the two-month extension would impose on
employers or their payroll providers will inevitably divert
resources away from productive activities. Indeed, the
uncertainty regarding what happens next following the two-
month expiration date will serve as additional fuel to
currently low business confidence levels.
Already, small business owners are frustrated by one and
two-year extensions of various tax measures. Individual
Americans and entrepreneurs need to plan, and they are tired
of these short-term fixes. The two-month extension is
unacceptable. SBE Council urges the House and Senate to enact
a solution that will allow businesses and individuals to
properly plan.
Sincerely,
Karen Kerrigan,
President & CEO.
____
National Payroll
Reporting Consortium,
Henrietta, NY, Dec. 19, 2011.
Re. H.R. 3630 Payroll Tax Relief Proposals
Representative Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, United States House of
Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator Max Baucus,
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Representative Sander Levin,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, United States
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Levin
and Ranking Member Hatch: we are writing to express concerns
regarding Section 101 of H.R. 3630,
[[Page H9966]]
which would establish a new Social Security Taxable Wage
limit of $18,350, to which a reduced 4.2% rate would apply
through February 29, 2012. Wages over $18,350 paid during the
first two months of 2012 would be subject to a 6.2% Social
Security tax rate.
The National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) is a non-
profit trade association whose member organizations provide
payroll processing and related services, including electronic
payment and filing of employment taxes, and related
information returns, to over 1.5 million employers
nationwide, covering over one-third of the private sector
work force. Payroll service providers serve an important role
in our nation's tax collection system as a conduit between
employers and government authorities, improving the
efficiency of tax collection through electronic filing and
improving compliance.
As mentioned in our correspondence to the tax-writing
committees in July, the NPRC is strictly neutral on virtually
all policy matters, such as whether a reduced Social Security
tax rate is necessary or desirable. The organization serves
largely to advise policymakers as to the administrative
implications of proposals affecting payroll and payroll tax
administration.
NPRC
Accordingly, NPRC advises policymakers that we believe
there is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal
embodied in H.R. 3630. In our opinion enactment of H.R. 3630
as written could create substantial problems, confusion and
costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers
and employees.
The difficulty is in establishing a new Social Security
Taxable Wage limit of $18,350 for the two-month extension
period. More than ten percent of the workforce is likely to
meet that limit, and would be subject to the higher 6.2% tax
rate for earnings over that amount. However, many payroll
systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial
programming change before January or even February. The
systems affected tend to be highly complex, normally
requiring at least ninety days for a change of this magnitude
for software testing alone; not to mention analysis, design,
coding and implementation.
As we commented to the Treasury Department concerning the
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job
Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312), which was enacted
December 17, 2010 and effective on January 1, 2011, payroll
service providers are probably the best equipped of those
affected to handle last-minute tax law changes. However,
programming to support the new taxable wage limit might not
be available to employers that do not use a payroll service
provider until well after the effective date. Affected
employees could be confused by payroll adjustments seeking to
collect additional taxes late in the year for wages paid in
January or February.
Given a two month extension, policymakers may feel they
have no alternative than to establish a new Social Security
Taxable Wage limit of $18,350; i.e., to do otherwise may
invite criticism because highly compensated employees could
meet their entire 2012 Social Security obligation at the
reduced 4.2% tax rate, whereas others would (assuming the
reduced rate is not further extended by subsequent
legislation) enjoy the 4.2% rate only in the first two
months.
PRC understands Congress' concern that highly compensated
employees not enjoy the full benefit of the 2% tax break
because of bonuses or other high compensation falling into
the first two months of the year. Nevertheless with the first
of January now only two weeks away and payroll departments
trying to meet year-end compliance mandates and
reconciliation, there simply is insufficient time to
implement this major change in withholding requirements. It
would also be necessary to await IRS regulatory guidance for
further details concerning the change.
If the 4.2% rate is later extended for the full year, the
$18,350 taxable limit for the first two months would be
unnecessary. However, even if subsequent legislation extends
the 4.2% rate for the full year, employers would still have
to make costly programming changes to accommodate the 6.2%
tax rate on wages in excess of $18,350 paid prior to March.
Recommendations
1. We recommend that Congress omit Section 101 from H.R.
3630 and not prospectively extend the reduced tax rate for
the first two months of 2012. Instead, we would suggest that
the Congress enact the reduced tax rate at a later date, but
make the change retroactive to January 1. For example, a 4.2%
employee Social Security tax rate enacted on February 15,
2012 should still be retroactively effective on January 1,
2012. Virtually all payroll systems are built to self-correct
Social Security taxes, so employers would automatically
accommodate a late but retroactive change, automatically
refunding to each employee any over-withholding from early
2012 payrolls. The same tax rate and taxable wage limit
should apply for the full calendar year.
If this is not feasible, we recommend that the Social
Security Taxable Wage limit of $18,350 be removed from H.R.
3630. If the reduced tax rate is later extended through 2012,
this would likely avoid the substantial reprogramming of
payroll systems that would otherwise be necessary. If the
reduced tax rate is not subsequently extended, the proposed
taxable wage limit of $18,350 could be established in later
legislation. This would require a recalculation and
collection of additional tax later in the year, but given the
lack of time permitted for reprogramming systems, most
employers will already need to collect any additional tax
through adjustments later in the year.
If neither of the options is feasible, it would mitigate
the difficulty moderately to apply the reduced rate to the
entire calendar quarter; i.e., through March 31. We recognize
that this would represent a substantial change, and its
impact in facilitating programming would be relatively minor.
A more detailed explanation of the difficulties inherent in
the current Section 101 is attached. Please contact me if you
have any questions or if we can be of service. We appreciate
this opportunity to advise congressional policymakers as to
the impact of H.R. 3630.
Sincerely,
Pete Isberg,
President
National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc.
____
Taxpayer Impact
As a ballpark number, according to IRS Statistics of
Income, over 18 million returns were filed for Tax Year 2008
with more than $100,000 in Adjusted Gross Income, or about 13
percent of all returns. Individuals earning over $110,100
annually are likely to be affected by the 6.2% Social
Security rate for January and February.
Taxpayers who are paid more than $18,350 in the first two
months of the year could be confused or upset by application
of the higher tax rate. For example, an individual who is
laid off in January may receive a lump-sum severance payout
of $50,000, which may be the bulk of their income in 2012.
Nevertheless, they would pay $633 more in Social Security
taxes than had they simply received the same income over a
six month period, or later in the year.
If the OASDI rate of 4.2% is ultimately extended through
2012, those who are paid over $18,350 prior to March will
have paid at the higher rate due to the timing of their
compensation, whereas someone who earns the same amount for
2012 but receives less than $18,350 in the first two months
of the year would pay at the 4.2% rate through 2012.
Timing of Compensation
The limitation creates new incentives for employers and
employees to shift compensation earlier or later in the year
(depending on their guess as to whether the 4.2% OASDI rate
may be extended for the full year). Some taxpayers receive
significant bonuses, commissions or other lump-sum
compensation in January. Some employers and/or employees may
have discretion over when such compensation is paid (e.g.,
exercise of stock options).
If employers and/or taxpayers believe that a reduced OASDI
rate of 4.2% will ultimately be extended, they may defer
wages over $18,350 until after February. If the IRS sought to
challenge such a result, they would need to ask the employer
for details as to the timing of wages paid.
Employer Impact
To accommodate a new Social Security Taxable Wage limit of
$18,350, to which a reduced 4.2% rate would apply through
February 29, 2012, payroll systems would need to be modified
to calculate, withhold and store separately:
Social Security Wages paid through February 29 up to
$18,350
Social Security Wages paid through February 29 over $18,350
but less than $110,100
Social Security Wages paid after February 29 up to $110,100
Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 up to
$18,350 ( 4.2%)
Social Security, tax on wages paid through February 29 over
$18,350 but less than $110,100 ( 6.2%)
Social Security tax on wages paid after February 29 up to
$110,100 ( TBD%)
Issues
The separate reporting implied would require businesses to
expand payroll databases and modify programs with
insufficient lead time. January 2012 payrolls are already
being processed in late December. It is likely that many
software developers, service providers and employers would
not be able to modify payroll software in time for January or
February payrolls. This could lead to difficult situations
later in the year as employers sort out what should have been
collected, and in some cases collect additional taxes, and
determine how to amend employment tax returns.
Employers might not be able to collect additional taxes
from workers who have subsequently changed jobs, and could
also be subject to substantial IRS underpayment penalties if
they are unable to calculate, withhold and pay the higher
OASDI amounts in January and February.
Impact to the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security
Administration
The IRS may not be able to quickly produce guidance
necessary to enable appropriate design of such systems.
Businesses and software developers may have to guess as to
what the IRS may require in terms of recordkeeping and
reporting. It would be very costly if developers made
assumptions as to what reporting the IRS might require, and
the IRS announced something different. The IRS would likely
need to change Forms 941 and W-2 to require separate
reporting of the same information:
[[Page H9967]]
Social Security Wages paid through February 29 up to
$18,350
Social Security Wages paid through February 29 over $18,350
but less than $110,100
Social Security Wages paid after February 29 up to $110,100
Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 up to
$18,350 ( 4.2%)
Social Security tax on wages paid through February 29 over
$18,350 but less than $110,100 ( 6.2%)
Social Security tax on wages paid after February 29 up to
$110,100 ( TBD%)
Issues
The IRS may not be able to change Form 941 for the quarter
ended March 31 in time. If this occurs, businesses may need
to amend their returns, or the IRS may need to modify
subsequent tax forms to permit adjustments, further
complicating tax forms and reconciliation systems.
There is also insufficient space on Form W-2 for such
information. Consequently, Form W-2 would need to be
significantly expanded, complicating the 2012 tax season (in
2013) for taxpayers and tax preparers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Let me put this very simply: this is a dishonest
procedure. This is a ruse to avoid a straight up-or-down vote on the
Senate bill and the 2-month extension.
Why not hold a straight vote, as indeed called for under regular
order? That's the regular order. Because the Republican majority is
afraid of a straight vote. They're afraid some Republicans would vote
``yes,'' and the Senate bill would pass and the President would sign
it, and it would become law today. And they don't want other
Republicans on record voting against a payroll tax cut. That is the
epitome of a ruse.
Thirty-nine Republican Senators--39, all but a handful--voted for the
bill before us. But what has happened since Saturday's bipartisan
Senate bill that Speaker Boehner said was a good deal? Well, the
sailors staged a mutiny and the captain decided to surrender. He
decided to join the mutiny to keep the ship from coming to port. But
the problem is that on board are millions of passengers waiting to
dock.
This chart shows the number of passengers: 160 million Americans
would see their taxes increased; 2.3 million Americans on board looking
for work would lose their critical unemployment benefits; and 48
million seniors--Americans on Medicare--will have access to their
doctors they know and they trust jeopardized.
So I want it clear for these people, all of these people: the
Republican vote today is a vote to nowhere. Dick Lugar said that. I'm
hopeful that there are a majority of Republicans and Democrats today
who will proceed because it seems to me it is the best for the country,
as well as for all the individuals who are affected.
Another Republican Senator from Massachusetts: ``The House
Republicans' plan to scuttle''--that's the correct word--``the deal to
help middle class families is irresponsible and wrong. The refusal to
compromise now threatens to increase taxes on hardworking Americans and
stop unemployment benefits for those out of work. We cannot allow rigid
partisan ideology and unwillingness to compromise stand in the way of
working together for the good of the American people.''
And a third Republican Senator, Senator Heller, a former colleague
here of Nevada: ``There's no reason to hold up the short-term extension
while a more comprehensive deal is worked out.''
And I want to quote a statement from Treasury about the notion that
the 2-month extension cannot be implemented:
``While any short-term extension is bound to create some
administrative complexities, it is feasible to implement the bipartisan
Senate bill''--this is Treasury that is in charge of implementation of
this--``and the Treasury Department will work with employers to ensure
the smoothest possible implementation. In the current economic
situation, any such complications will be outweighed by the economic
benefits of ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans
starting on January 1.''
I would like to place the entire statement in the Record.
Statement from Jenni LeCompte, Assistant Secretary for
Public Affairs, United States Treasury Department: ``Everyone
agrees that a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut
would have been preferable, which is why the Administration
has long advocated an extension for the entirety of 2012.
Unfortunately, in the waning days of this session of
Congress, Members were unable to reach agreement on the
details of a year-long extension that could generate strong
bipartisan support. The best they could do was the two-month
extension passed by a vote of 89-10 in the Senate on
Saturday.
``While any short-term extension is bound to create some
administative complications, it is feasible to implement the
bipartisan Senate bill, and the Treasury Department will work
with employers to ensure the smoothest possible
implementation. In the current economic situation, any such
complications will be outweighed by the economic benefits of
ensuring that taxes do not go up on 160 million Americans
starting on January 1st.''
{time} 1130
I want to close with what Harry Reid said. Take it seriously. This is
on what 39 Republicans and 50 Democrats voted for, the bill you will
not let us vote on:
``I have always sought a yearlong extension. I've been trying to
forge one for weeks.'' He could have said for months. ``And I'm happy
to continue negotiating one once we have made sure middle class
families will not wake up to a tax increase on January 1. So, before we
reopen negotiations on a yearlong extension, the House of
Representatives must protect middle class families by passing the
overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that Republicans negotiated and
was approved by 90 percent of the Senate.''
You are snubbing a bipartisan compromise. You are jeopardizing the
lives of millions of taxpayers, millions of the unemployed, and
millions of seniors. To keep harmony within your ranks, you are
creating the possibility of immense discord within the United States of
America. We're not going to let you do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers, small businesses, and health care
providers need certainty and predictability to plan for the future.
Unfortunately, the bill that's come back to us from the other Chamber
makes our usual habit of only 1-year long extensions look responsible
by comparison.
The Senate bill extends a number of key policies, including the patch
preventing a steep cut to doctors' Medicare payments, for just 2
months.
Mr. Speaker, we've been down this road before. Last year, under the
previous majority, Congress passed five separate extensions of Medicare
physician payments, mostly for just a month or two. Several times these
patches missed the deadline, meaning payment cuts took effect and then
had to be reversed.
The failure to responsibly address the SGR created an unprecedented
amount of chaos and confusion, both for doctors and the Medicare
agency. House Republicans have been determined not to let this happen
again. That's why we passed a fully paid-for 2-year fix.
The American people are tired of Congress wasting time on political
stunts and waiting till the last minute to cobble together half
measures.
Mr. Speaker, we still have 2 weeks before the end of the year to get
this right, and there's no reason to think we'll do better in 2 months.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to go to conference so we
can get a responsible solution.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very senior member of our
committee, the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. I am amazed at the ability of the majority to change its
position so fast. Sometimes I wish Democrats had the ability to do
this. It wasn't too long ago that there was objection for the taxpayers
holiday because of the impact on Social Security. Then there was
objection to the unemployment insurance because people on the other
side said that people wouldn't go look for a job, that they would just
stay home and watch television and receive the check. And of
[[Page H9968]]
course, no one can deny that the doctors that give care to 48 million
people deserve compensation for what they do.
But, being here as long as I have, I can see how, in the majority, a
handful of people will try to prove to their constituents that they're
not marching in line with regular order; that they didn't come down
here just to go along with the Senate or their leadership. And it's
kind of rough to be a part of a party that is so widely split.
I had only hoped that they could come up with a better excuse than
the fact that 2 months is not enough time to prevent an increase in the
taxes of so many, 160 million people. And I know that everyone in this
Chamber knows that if the American people that will suffer such a
painful, insensitive act were to be asked, would you want it for 2
months, and then have the Congress to extend it? Would you take that?
Or would you want it to be for 1 year and the possibility of getting
absolutely nothing?
That is such a fearful, such a cruel thing to do, to gamble with
other people's ability to be able to enjoy this holiday season as best
they can. And so, I don't think that there will be any winners in
what's going on today. But I hope that the regular Republicans would be
able to see their way clear.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of a payroll
tax holiday. Last week we voted to have a 1-year extension of
unemployment insurance with reforms. Last week we voted to have a 2-
year extension of the Sustained Growth Rate for Medicare recipients and
the doctors that provide that care.
Last week we voted for certainty, and we voted to restore confidence.
We voted for a measure that was paid for, that will have no detriment
or negative outcomes to Social Security. Last week we voted for job-
creating policies and a bill that had 10 to 12 Obama-approved
provisions.
We are not afraid to vote. And if you don't want to accept this
measure, then continue to vote ``no,'' just the same as our colleagues
from across the aisle last week voted ``no.'' They voted ``no'' against
what President Obama wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator
Harry Reid said he wanted; they voted ``no'' against what Senator Chuck
Schumer said he wanted.
The Senate sent us back a 2-month extension which is irresponsible
and cannot be implemented, and it reflects abject incompetence.
I urge all of my House colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to
disagree with the irresponsible Senate amendment and move to
conference. Or do we just want to continue to see the American people
suffer?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a famous speech started, ``We will little
note or long remember what we say here today.'' But the Bible says,
``By your deeds ye shall know them.''
Now, the Republicans have said that it's Christmastime. Kids are
hanging their socks all over the world. And they're all getting up and
hoping there will be something in that sock on Christmas Day. And the
Republicans have something to put in it. They have a lump of coal.
They're going to say to 160 million people, we're going to boost your
taxes. Here's your Christmas gift, right?
They're going to say to 2.5 million unemployed people, no
unemployment benefits because it's only for 2 months and we can't--
there's every excuse in the book you can give, but when they get up on
Christmas there's going to be coal in their socks.
The working poor of this country are counting on that tax break.
They've gone out and bought gifts for their kids, and they think
they're going to pay for them because they have this tax reduction. And
you're taking it away from them after they've spent the money on the
Christmas gifts. That's your lump of coal to the middle class.
Now, for the seniors, the lump of coal is, we're not going to pay the
doctors. We're going to cut the doctors by 25 percent. And doctors are
going to say, I'm going to limit the number of seniors.
Remember the lump of coal in November of 2012, folks. They gave it to
you.
{time} 1140
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority
leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's the first night of Chanukah and Christmas is
fast approaching for families across America.
And what do families see coming out of Washington? Dysfunction and
half of Congress unwilling to do its job. Mr. Speaker, we were elected
to work for the best interests of the American people. In this tough
economy, middle class Americans and working families need to know that
their taxes won't be going up at any point next year.
So far the House has passed a bipartisan year-long plan to ensure
that taxes do not go up. The Senate, on the other hand, has passed a 2-
month plan. According to experts, the 2-month plan is simply
unworkable. Families, employers, and workers can't live their lives
month-to-month. Washington needs to stop adding confusion and more
uncertainty to people's lives.
I think we can all agree that the 2-month concept doesn't make a
whole lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, bottom line, a 2-month patch is
irresponsible. That's why the House is taking a stand. We believe all
Americans deserve certainty. We want a year-long extension of the
payroll tax cut which will prevent a tax increase on every American
with a job.
Luckily, Mr. Speaker, everyone claims to agree. In fact, the
President himself said it would be inexcusable not to extend the
payroll tax cut for a year. The leader of the Senate says that we
should be working on extending the payroll tax for a year, but only
after the new year.
Mr. Speaker, a great Virginian once said, ``Never put off to tomorrow
what you can do today.'' That man was Thomas Jefferson.
Let us dedicate ourselves to that spirit. People across our great
country are tired of hearing why Washington cannot do things. They're
seeing day in and day out that Washington is not working together, but
we have the ability to give them some hope. Let's show the American
people that there's a reason to believe that we can work together and
deliver results.
Truth is, we're not far apart on this issue. The negotiators got
extremely close. We owe some stability and good tax policy to the
hardworking people of this country, not more gimmicks and political
games.
Today, this House will vote to go to conference and work these
differences out in regular order. We need to come together in a
responsible manner to find common ground where we can accomplish
everyone's goal of a year-long payroll tax extension.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the House, the Senate, and the
President cannot spend the next 2 weeks working to get that done.
America will be waiting.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our
committee, the gentleman from the great State of Massachusetts (Mr.
Neal).
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we would be very happy in this institution if
just the Speaker of the House and the majority leader could work
together.
There was a deal over the weekend. The Speaker of the House accepted
the Senate's version of that agreement only to discover in a conference
call that he had to back down. The chairman of the Ways and Mean
Committee, my friend, he doesn't believe what they're doing here for
one moment. They're courting disaster.
This is the season of Advent and Christmas for Christians. Chanukah
begins today. It is the quest for light in our lives, to enlighten the
American people as to what is taking place here today; 160 million
Americans are going to lose this tax cut. Organized labor and
management, they do this all the time. You have a cooling-off period.
You get to a more benign time, and you negotiate in good faith.
You've seen what's happened here. A radical element has seized the
Republican Party. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Brown, is on
the
[[Page H9969]]
front page of the Boston Globe today criticizing his own party. Dean
Heller criticizing his own party. Richard Lugar criticizing his own
party.
We're arguing today about unemployment benefits in this season for
members of the American family who are going to lose those benefits.
We're arguing about a tax cut for middle-income Americans today, 160
million strong; for doctors who care for the most vulnerable amongst
us, the Medicare patients over their reimbursement rates.
When you consider what Republicans did during the Bush years with
those tax cuts for wealthy people, they never flinched for one moment.
The rich were rich, and they weren't going to take it anymore. And they
were going to reinforce that idea--cut taxes 10 times in 10 years for
the wealthiest among us. We should be voting on what the Senate did. No
chicanery.
Put that motion in front of us today, and let's have an up-or-down
vote and then explain it to the American people.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. President, Senate Democrat leaders, don't
vacation until you finish your job. Families and small businesses need
tax relief for a full year, not just for 2 months.
The House, we've already done our job. We've already passed a full 1-
year extension of the payroll tax holiday. We've included unemployment
reforms for those who are out of work, paying our local doctors fairly
in Medicare for a full 2 years, unlocking the Keystone pipeline, and
cutting spending to completely pay for it.
We've done our job.
But the Democrat-led Senate shortchanged the American public by
rushing through a partial 2-month extension and then hurrying home for
their Christmas vacations. That's irresponsible. Families and small
businesses need to be able to plan with confidence for a full year, not
just 2 measly months.
You said, Mr. President, just last week, that the American people
deserve a 1-year bill. Our Democratic friends said a 1-year bill. The
Democrats in the Senate said a 1-year bill. Well, House Republicans are
going to hold you to your word by moving forward today to a conference
committee to work out the differences. We're going to work it out--not
next year, not when you get around to it, but now. That's the next step
in the constitutional process, and we House Republicans are willing to
work through the holidays to make sure we get the job done for the
American public.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in
the second person.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, a very
distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my
colleague, Mr. Levin, for yielding.
If we go home without passing the bipartisan Senate bill, we disgrace
ourselves and this Congress. We are out of time. We cannot go into this
holiday season without helping our unemployed brothers and sisters. We
cannot keep our seniors from seeing their doctors. We cannot allow
taxes to go up for millions of Americans.
What is happening here today is shameful, it is a disgrace, it is
unreal, it is unbelievable. We can do better.
If we fail today, how will you face your neighbor, your family, who
are suffering? Where is your compassion? Where is your heart? Where is
your soul? I, sir, vote ``no'' on this motion and pass the Senate
bipartisan bill.
{time} 1150
Mr. CAMP. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Conference chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we all need to be reminded of why we're here in the
first place.
We're here because the President's economic policies have failed.
They've failed this Nation. Ever since he was elected, unemployment has
been at, near, or above 9 percent. And the people suffer. So that's why
I believe almost every Member of this body believes that we must extend
the payroll tax holiday.
That's not the debate, Mr. Speaker.
What is most curious, though, is our President. Our President has
said it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this
middle class tax cut for the rest of the year. He didn't say 60 days.
He said the rest of the year. The Democratic leader has said that she
intends to fight to extend these provisions for a full year.
So, Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm confused.
I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say they want to do
this for a year. They say they want to do it for a year, but they're
just not willing to vote to do it for a year. That's most curious, Mr.
Speaker. I don't think I understand it. That's what the President asked
for. It's what the American people deserve. They don't want us to punt
the ball. They want us to do our job. So there is no point of
contention on whether or not this should be extended.
But the question is: Are we going to do it for a full year, or are we
going to punt the ball down the field and, once again, disappoint the
American people?
Here is the next point of contention:
We stand ready to work over the holidays to get this done. That's the
question. Are you willing to work over the holidays, or are you not
willing to work over the holidays? The American people, most of them,
are going to have to work over the holidays. Why shouldn't we be
willing to do this?
Mr. Speaker, I guess it's just curious how many people seem to be
unaware that there is this thing called a ``conference committee.''
Since the dawn of the Republic, these are how differences are settled
between the House and the Senate. If you don't remember your Civics
101, and maybe if you have small children like I do, you can go back
and watch the Schoolhouse Rock video. It's very clear. All we're asking
is that the Democrats appoint conferees and negotiate in good faith--
except the Senate Democrat leader said he wouldn't do it, and the House
Democrat leader said she wouldn't do it.
So it kind of begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Do they want to make
laws that benefit the American people in a time of need, or do they
want to perpetuate a campaign issue that maybe they believe helps their
campaigns? That's really the question.
Then last but not least, we ought to pass laws that actually work
around here. ABC News reported last night: ``Holiday Passed by Senate,
Pushed by President, Cannot Be Implemented Properly, Experts Say.''
Well, isn't that interesting.
The National Payroll Reporting Consortium that handles payroll for
about a third of the private economy said that this ``could create
substantial problems, confusion and cost, affecting a significant
percentage of U.S. employers and employees.''
The Associated Builders and Contractors, the people who actually go
out and build things in America, have said: ``This sort of temporary
fix underscores Congress' uneven, ad hoc approach toward the economy,
and causes more harm than good for America's job creators.'' The
leading building trade association in the Nation said the Senate's 60-
day plan will cause more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have passed a good and reasonable
bill. It's for 1 year. It does what the President asks us to do. It
does what the American people ask us to do. It's actually paid for. It
doesn't increase the deficit, and it blocks tax increases. I don't know
how my friends on the other side of the aisle think we're going to
create jobs with temporary tax increases with permanent tax increases.
It doesn't happen.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to another
member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from California,
Xavier Becerra.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
My friends, we've seen this movie before. House Republicans, once
again, are driving our government and our economy to the edge of the
cliff, and this time they've placed 160 million workers and 48 million
seniors in the front seat of that car.
House Republican leaders are refusing to allow 435 Members of this
House
[[Page H9970]]
to vote on a bipartisan proposal that was passed by 89 out of 100
Senators next door. My Republican colleagues know that this bipartisan
bill passed by the Senate would pass on this floor and that it would
save working Americans from having their taxes increased during the
holidays.
The truth is the Republicans are feuding amongst themselves. House
Republicans are fighting with Senate Republicans, and quite frankly,
they're fighting with Republicans throughout this country, because a
majority of them supports the President's payroll tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the people--Republicans and Democrats
alike--are way ahead of the politicians. They want us to get our work
done and get it done now. Let's stop showing the American people B-
rated movies on the floor of the House, and let's pass the Senate
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank Chairman Camp for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I was a practicing
cardiovascular surgeon with many years of experience, and it was not
unusual to get called out in the middle of the night or on a holiday to
an emergency. Just like doctors all over this country, we're there 24/7
to deal with problems.
Now, I remember distinctly one night--Christmas Eve, in fact. I was
getting ready to sit down for dinner with my family when I got called
to see an 85-year-old Cajun gentleman, with a very large family, who
had a ruptured aneurysm, and he was in shock. I spent the entire night
operating on this man. We saved his life, long story short.
We have a duty, an obligation, to our patients. By God, to put
physicians in a position of seeing a 27, 28 percent cut in
reimbursement is just untenable. Why? It's not because of the
physicians. It's because of patients who are going to lose access.
Medicare beneficiaries, seniors, those with disabilities will lose
access to care during a situation in which we're already seeing eroding
access. We have an obligation to act because the consequences are not
good with regard to all of these provisions we're trying to extend.
This House passed a bill last week. It was a very responsible bill
with good reforms, and it gave a 2-year stability period for physicians
and for those patients who desperately need this care. And what did the
Senate do? The Senate capitulated. The Senate caved. The Senate
basically just gave up with contempt for the American people.
That's what it comes down to.
They're basically content with allowing confusion and disruption and
chaos and uncertainty for patients who deserve good, high-quality care.
They did the same thing to those who depend on these unemployment
benefits, and they did the same for those who depend on this payroll
tax cut during this holiday season.
We're going to pass a bill today that basically says we want to go to
conference to resolve these differences, and the Senate has an
obligation to the American people to stand with us and to follow its
constitutional duty to go to conference in order to resolve these
disputes, these differences, in a time-honored way.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate has an obligation to the American people. The
Senate has an obligation to carry out its duty to the American people.
We can get this right. Let's do it and be done with it, but let's get
it done and let's get it done right.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has
10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished
member of our committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Some say that the House Republican leadership pulled the plug on the
Senate bipartisan bill because they were afraid of their Republican Tea
Party freshmen.
Perhaps.
But what is clear is that we're not being allowed by the Republican
leadership to vote on the Senate bill because the Republicans are
afraid of their moderates, of their independents, of their reasonable
``unhardliners.''
{time} 1200
The measure of this Congress is that the House Republicans won't act
until they are forced to as a result of self-imposed, crisis-inducing
deadlines. Then if they can't get their own way on an agenda that could
never be passed through regular order in both Chambers and signed by
the President, they throw a tantrum. And what we're dealing with today:
a legislative tantrum.
Now, I don't like the 2-month extension. It has some difficulties and
uncertainties. But there would be far more uncertainty and difficulty
if there were a 2-week gap or a 2-month gap where 700,000 people in
early January will lose their unemployment benefits, 2 million in the
next 2 months. If we simply would follow regular order, allow a vote on
the Senate amendment, we could build on this glimmer of bipartisanship
from the other body. Allow your Members to vote. Who knows where it
could lead? We actually may be able to solve some of these long-term
problems.
Mr. CAMP. I would ask if the gentleman from Michigan would like to
yield again so that we can even up the time.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman.
I now yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our
committee, the gentleman from the great State of New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a fraternity house. This is the House of Representatives.
Yet what have we wrought? I heard someone, two people say on this
floor, quoting the President of the United States--they should
apologize to him immediately--that the President was urging us to vote
a 1-year plan. He wasn't asking us to vote on your plan for a year. You
know what he thinks about what you proposed. And it didn't even come up
in the Senate. In fact, 39 Republicans--that's 82 percent of the entire
delegation of a Republican Senate--and 89 percent of the total Senate
voted for this compromise.
I know you hate the word. ``Compromise'' does not mean that you
surrender your values or your principles. Compromise is what was the
basis of the Founding Fathers. That's how we got a Constitution. Nobody
was happy with that Constitution. They didn't get everything they
wanted, and you're not going to get everything you want. So you'd
better get it out of your head right now.
The majority leader--wonderful cliches--he forgets that only 2 years
ago a Republican Member of the House sponsored a 2-month payroll tax
holiday and had 59 cosponsors. We have amnesia, selective amnesia. He
changed his tune this Saturday. He was against the idea of a short-term
gimmick. This Saturday he said it's a good deal. ``It's a victory,'' he
said. He claimed victory. That reminds me of another victory I heard a
couple of years ago. Once the same Members of this party, in this
caucus rebelled, the Speaker reversed his course.
Keeping the payroll tax cut in place as we figure out a way to extend
it for the year reduces uncertainty among employers, workers, and
families in my district. And I ask that we reconsider what we're doing
today.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in
the second person.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms.
Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, folks are mad out there. They're mad because what
Congress is doing--or not doing, in many cases--makes absolutely no
sense.
As a CPA, I'll tell you that handling tax policy on a month-to-month
basis isn't just irresponsible; it's downright crazy. According to the
nonpartisan National Payroll Reporting Consortium, the cost of
complying with the 2-month extension proposed by the Senate may
actually harm many small businesses. In fact, implementing the cuts on
this short timeline may not even be possible.
[[Page H9971]]
In addition to being a CPA, I'm also a mom, and I would do just about
anything to be working out of our Topeka office at this time of year so
that I could spend evenings with my kids. But agreeing to a tax policy
that is so short-lived that it costs not just our government but also
our small businesses big bucks is not one of them.
The American people are exhausted. They are sick and tired of
Congress kicking the can down the road on hard decisions. So I ask our
leaders in the Senate, Are your vacation plans more important than good
policy? Why will it be easier to negotiate a deal in February than it
is today? Come back. We still have time. Work with us to do the job we
were elected to do. Let's make the hard decisions today. Let's extend
the payroll tax cuts for the entire year, and let's not do it on the
backs of a generation more focused on Santa right now than they are on
tax policy.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
The American people should understand very clearly what's going on
here right now, and that is that the Republican majority in this House
of Representatives is refusing to allow a vote in this House on the
Senate bipartisan compromise. They are refusing to even allow a vote on
a bill that received 89 of 100 votes in the Senate, including 85
percent of the Senate Republicans. What are they so afraid of? It's
very clear that the Republican leadership is afraid that that same
bipartisanship that took place in the Senate will take place right here
in the House because they don't want a bipartisan bill; otherwise, we
would have a vote on it.
What we are witnessing today, Mr. Speaker, is the triumph of Tea
Party extremism over the good of the country. The sad part is, we
probably shouldn't be surprised because it was just a few months ago
that the Republican leadership was opposed to extending the payroll tax
cut at all. They originally said that raising taxes on 160 million
Americans would be okay, no problem. I have a long list of statements
from Republican House leaders to that effect.
Then two things happened: A whole lot of economists told us what was
common sense; that, in fact, if you raise taxes on 160 million
Americans, it will hurt the economy. And it also began to sound a
little strange for our Republican colleagues to be zealously protecting
tax breaks for special interests and for millionaires while allowing
tax increases on 160 million Americans. So they changed their story.
Then it was, We couldn't do this because it was going to hurt the
Social Security trust fund--that coming from the party that wanted to
privatize Social Security. And then the Social Security actuary told us
and the country that it wouldn't take 1 cent from the Social Security
trust fund. So now we have a whole different story today. Now the same
folks who were opposed to any continuation of the payroll tax cut say
they oppose the bipartisan Senate bill because it is only for 2 months,
and now they are preventing a vote on that bill.
The consequence is going to be very clear: On January 1, 160 million
Americans are going to see their payroll taxes increased. At the end of
the day, the Republican majority here in the House is going to go home.
They're going to go home. But you know what will remain here? The
Senate bipartisan bill, because we will never have voted on it. So, at
any time in the next several weeks, we can all come right back here and
in a matter of 5 minutes, send that bill to the President's desk, which
he said he will sign, and make sure that we avoid a payroll tax
increase on 160 million Americans. Make sure that folks who are
unemployed through no fault of their own get unemployment compensation;
make sure that doctors will continue to be paid when they treat
Medicare patients, so they can serve those patients. It will be sitting
right here for 3 weeks. Why? Because the Republican majority won't let
us vote on it.
I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to my friend, the chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee, to tell us why you refuse to allow a vote
on the Senate bipartisan bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say that if Minority Leader Pelosi and Senator Reid
appoint conferees, there's no reason for taxes to go up.
With that, I would yield----
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You didn't answer my question. The question is, Why
can't we have a vote?
Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan controls the
time. The gentleman from Maryland is not recognized. The gentleman from
Maryland shall suspend.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. I can see why the gentleman is a little bit defensive about
that.
With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
{time} 1210
Mrs. BLACK. Fixing something for 2 months is not fixing something.
It's a Band-Aid and it's bad policy. I've been a nurse for over 40
years, and I'm going to use a medical analogy to illustrate this point.
If someone were to come into the emergency room where I'm working
with a medical issue and I said to them: I'll give you a choice; we can
either fix your problem for 2 months or we can fix your problem for a
year, I have no doubt that the patient would choose certainty of 1 year
over 2 months.
For the past 10 months, I have been visiting individuals and
businesses in my district, and what I continually hear from them is
uncertainty is hurting them and it's hurting our economy. Now, the
House sent a bill to the Senate that contains some certainty, and we
get back a 2-month Band-Aid.
In this bill, we have certainty for businesses, certainty for
doctors, certainty for individual taxpayers, and certainty for our
seniors. There is a need for a 2-year extension on the Medicare
reimbursement for our doctors to ensure that seniors receive access to
care. There is a need for a 1-year payroll holiday for individuals and
businesses.
As has already been said, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium,
which is a nonpartisan group, has expressed concerns to Members of
Congress that the 2-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and
supported by the President cannot be implemented properly. We also need
a 2-year extension or a fix for our unemployment benefits to give
certainty to businesses and also to individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated that the Senate kicked the can down the
road one more time for only 2 months after we sent them a bill that was
not only bipartisan--yes, a bipartisan bill passed by this House--but
also had good job policies. I came back to D.C. yesterday to do
something better, a package that creates certainty rather than a 2-
month patch.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished Member, the
gentlelady from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Don't blame Congress for not working together; blame the House
Republicans who can't even work with each other. The one and only
reason this House of Representatives is not voting for the bipartisan
Senate bill to provide relief to middle class taxpayers, seniors, and
disabled people on Medicare and jobless Americans is because it would
pass. That's right. The Republican scam was to bring up the bill
supported by 90 percent of the Senate and then kill it. But on the way
to this slaughter, a funny thing happened. Sensible Republicans
basically said: You want me to vote to abandon millions of middle class
Americans without the help they need this holiday season? No way.
So the sanctimonious rhetoric you hear today from the Republicans is
nothing but talk, baby talk. If they don't get their way exactly, then
they won't play.
What they're saying to millions of Americans, saying, Happy Hanukkah
to middle class Americans who are lighting the first candle tonight and
won't get their $1,000 tax break; Happy
[[Page H9972]]
New Year to our seniors and people with disabilities who may lose their
doctor; Merry Christmas to the jobless Americans desperate for work,
looking for work, who barely survive on their unemployment checks.
The House Republicans are the grinches who stole your Christmas.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's not a
$1,000 payroll tax reduction, just as was quoted by my colleague who
just spoke. The Senate bill is 2 months. It is $160. So let's be clear
and honest with the American people.
What we're talking about here in the House of Representatives on our
side of the aisle today is that we want to do our work. Yes, we want to
be with our families for Christmas and we want to be home ringing in
the new year with our family and friends. But you know what, the
American people deserve better. We are willing to stay here and do the
work, not do Band-Aid type of policy. Tax policy on a 2-month basis,
are you kidding me? That is ridiculous.
We need long-term solutions to our problems in America. We need to
put the political bickering aside. Two months is not a solution. It's
dodging responsibility in the Senate.
And so where I'm at today is I support the underlying bill that we
stand and rise to support today, and it is a vote. We will have a vote
to reject the Senate's position with its amendments and its Band-Aid
policy, and we will send a clear message to the American people that we
in the House of Representatives are about finding solutions long term--
1, 2 years at a minimum--and we're willing to do the work.
I call on the Senate to come back to D.C. and finish the job.
Hardworking taxpayers of America deserve no less than for us to honor
our oath and our responsibility to govern through solutions, not
political games.
Mr. LEVIN. Could the Speaker please verify how much time each side
has.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished
colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in firm opposition
to this motion to go to conference without a vote on the Senate bill to
extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits. It is deeply
disappointing and troubling that we'll be denied the opportunity to
vote on the Senate's overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise that would
bring relief to millions of America's working families.
Now, my Republican colleagues have said: Pass the 1-year bill that
passed the House last week.
Well, talk to your Republican colleagues in the Senate. Four times
the Senate Democrats tried to bring up your bill, and four times a
Senate Republican objected. Facts are hard.
If we do not pass this bill, 160 million Americans will face a $1,000
tax increase as we go into the new year. If we do not act, in my home
State, 9 million Floridians will see this tax increase next year. If we
do not act, 2.2 million unemployed Americans will lose their
unemployment benefits. And if we do not act, 48 million seniors will
face the specter of having to find new doctors due to cuts to Medicare
reimbursement rates.
Like many of my colleagues, I have received countless constituent
calls, letters, and emails, many of them very personal and emotional.
Just this morning, I was especially moved by a note from a single
mom, Christine, with a 3-year-old daughter, from my congressional
district. She wrote: I am pleading my case to you out of desperation to
extend unemployment insurance.
These benefits help her provide food and necessities for her
daughter. Too many of my colleagues like to paint unemployment
beneficiaries with one insensitive and cruel brush. This young woman is
not someone sitting around just collecting government checks. She was
laid off from her job this fall and has only been on unemployment for a
couple of months while she looks for another job.
My constituent's story, while personal and moving, is, unfortunately,
not a unique one. My Republican colleagues who callously ignore the
needs of middle class Americans by refusing to vote on the payroll tax
extension and unemployment benefits are sending the message to millions
of working families that, despite their efforts to look for and find
work in this delicate economy, they simply don't care.
The House Republican leadership needs to allow a straight up-or-down
vote on the Senate bill which passed 89-10 with strong bipartisan
support. Clearly, they are afraid it might pass.
I urge you to listen to the plight of constituents like Christine who
said: I'm asking that they give people more time to find work by
pushing these dates back further. I'm having a very hard time trying to
find work that will accommodate my living expenses for myself and 3-
year-old daughter.
Christine has only been on unemployment since September. She needs
our help. Millions of Americans need our help. Pass this bill and stop
playing politics with people's lives.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
{time} 1220
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
What we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, is the difference
between passing a tax policy that would only last 2 months or passing a
tax policy that lasts the entire year. During this next week and a
half, while families are sitting at home doing their budget for next
year, they're going to be making their budget for the entire year 2012,
not for just 2 months. And yet what the Senate sent over is a plan that
only kicks the can down road, and we'd be right back here again having
this same debate in 2 months.
People are sick and tired of this kind of absurd action from
Congress. If you look at early civics courses, anybody that takes their
first civics course knows that when there's a difference between the
House and the Senate--as there is here--then the two sides appoint
conferees, they get together and they work out those differences.
That's what the legislative process is about. And clearly we have a
difference.
We think the policy should be for an entire year, as even the
President has said, and the Senate sent us over a 2-month patch that
doesn't even fix the problem. In fact, outside groups like the National
Federation of Independent Businesses said this would hurt small
businesses. And yet what do we get from the other side? Minority Leader
Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, said she will not appoint any House Democrats to
participate in the negotiations. She just said this last night. So in
the spirit of Christmas, you've got the minority leader saying she's
just going to take her toys and go home. That's not the responsible
thing to do.
Let's stay here, let's get the policy right, let's do our work, and
let's have the Senate do their work, too, for the American people.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. David Scott.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, and I appreciate the
opportunity to come down and to say a few words on this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm so glad that the people of this country are
tuning into what's happening on the floor of this House of
Representatives. What we are seeing is a great dysfunction in the
Republican Party in the House of Representatives.
Here is this situation: the American people are hurting, and 160
million American people do not need their taxes to go up. There are 2.2
million American people who are without unemployment benefits who will
have those unemployment benefits not extended. And there are seniors,
48 million of them, who will not be able to go and visit their doctors.
America is hurting, and what does the Republican Party in the House of
Representatives want to do? They want to hurt them some more by not
even allowing a vote on a compromise bill that was passed by the Senate
with 89 votes, 39 of them members of the Senate Republican Party.
Ladies and gentlemen, what's at stake here is a failure to
compromise.
[[Page H9973]]
That is the key. When Hamilton and Jefferson failed to compromise, it
was John Adams that brought them together. Where would this country be
if that had not happened? Ladies and gentlemen of America, wake up and
realize that this is not a party just of Tea Party people, or
Republicans or Democrats, it's a party of all of us.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman.
The President of the United States has said it would be inexcusable
not to extend the payroll tax cut for 1 year. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer
have said the same thing, as have dozens of other leading Democrats. I
agree with them and so does a bipartisan majority of the House who last
week voted to extend the tax cut for 1 year.
Now why do we support it for 1 year? Because 2 months only gives
uncertainty to this fragile economy. Uncertainty. Families can't plan,
businesses can't plan, and jobs can't be created. So why do the
Democrats want the 2 months? Sadly, because like their Democrat
colleagues in the Senate, they want to go home. But do you know what?
There is a 200-year-old mechanism for ironing out Senate and House
agreements. It's called ``conference committee.''
Now your leader has decided not to appoint people to this conference
committee. You want to compromise, that's what this vote is all about.
We want to compromise. We know we can't get everything we want. But
unlike the Senate, we're not saying it's our way or the highway. We're
saying compromise. Vote ``yes'' on this vote. Let's compromise, and
let's get this done.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, tax cuts delayed are tax cuts denied. Last
year, just before the holidays, the House Republicans extended the Bush
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, no strings attached. And
this year, Republicans won't even allow a vote to extend middle class
tax cuts. Republicans want to procrastinate. Democrats want to
legislate.
When it comes to millionaires, the Republicans are Santa Claus. For
the middle class, they are the Grinch. This isn't ``Mission
Impossible,'' Mr. Speaker. We don't need Tom Cruise to save seniors,
the middle class and the unemployed. We just need to pass the Senate
compromise right now. By not allowing an up-or-down vote on this
bipartisan compromise, the Republicans are raising the curtain on their
real priorities: millionaires and billionaires.
Americans don't need any more meetings, and they don't need any more
debate. They just need us to make sure their taxes do not go up on New
Year's Day. Today, we can protect the middle class, the seniors, and
the unemployed by passing this bipartisan compromise right now. Do it
now.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the
Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Tiberi).
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, this debate is in many ways surreal--
surreal. I learned in Civics 101 that the House is a coequal branch to
the Senate. Members on the other side say, well, this is a compromise.
It's a compromise in the Senate, not the House. The House has spoken.
The Senate says, my way or the highway.
Now, I understand that that's how it's kind of become around here,
and I know there are friends on the other side of the aisle who are
upset with the Senate when they've done it on other bills when they
were in the majority.
This is enough. The American people deserve better. We need to get
back to regular order. We need to compromise between the House-passed
bill and the Senate-passed bill. That's the way the Founding Fathers
wanted it: compromise between the House and the Senate, not between the
Senate and the Senate. Two months for the American people, that's
outrageous. They deserve a year, a full year to have a payroll tax
holiday, not 2 months.
Come on, ladies and gentlemen, let's send the Senate a message: come
back to Washington and do your work. Give the American people a year,
not 2 months.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no
further speakers and am prepared to close.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I remember when I was doing arguments before a court and
the judge would ask me a very salient question that would get to the
heart of the matter. And that's where we are today. There's this
question to the Republican majority: If you're so sure of your
arguments, why not allow a vote on the Senate bill? Otherwise,
everything you've said is a smoke screen. It's because you're afraid
you'd lose it, or you don't want some people voting ``no'' on the
Record. That's really what this is about.
And there's a second question: If you believe in bipartisanship, why
not allow a vote on a bipartisan bill in the Senate? I quoted three
Senators, and three more now have spoken out, Senators Snowe, Wicker
and Grassley. Senator Grassley says, if it doesn't pass the House
today, there's a chance the payroll tax holiday will be lost. And
Senator Wicker says, I'm surprised the House isn't willing to take a 2-
month time-out to do something more lasting.
So I think the answer is, again, your talk about bipartisanship is
totally shallow. The previous speaker said that the Senate said, it's
my way or the highway. No, that isn't accurate. The Speaker of the
House said to the Senate, get on the road and pass a bill. He never
said don't do it. He said do it.
{time} 1230
No, the problem is that many people in the House never wanted to
extend the payroll tax in the first place. And you sent over a bill
that deleted 40 weeks of unemployment insurance for the millions who
are looking for work and can't find a job. So today we have no choice
but to vote ``no'' and insist that this obligation be met in this House
of Representatives.
Vote. Vote. Vote on the bill that the Senate passed. Your denial of
allowing us a vote is a denial to the people of this country who are
uninsured as of December 1 for unemployment, who need Medicare, and
also those who need the continuation of the payroll tax cut. That's
what all of this is about. And anything else is a pure smoke screen
that all the American people will see through.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CAMP. What we're voting on today is to disagree with what the
Senate did to our bill. We're voting to disagree to the Senate
amendments. Once that's adopted, the House message on this bill goes
back to the Senate, and the Senate then is the only body in possession
of the bill. And we cannot move forward to resolve the differences
between the House and the Senate until Leader Reid and Representative
Pelosi appoint conferees. So we're voting to disagree with the Senate.
And let me just say, 2 months isn't long enough. You've heard a lot
of people talk today in this debate. It's embarrassing that we're doing
tax policy for 2 months. But it's not just House Republicans who think
we need a longer term extension, it's supporters, including many of our
Nation's Democratic Governors.
I received a letter, a letter that actually went to our leaders last
week, from 16 of the Nation's Governors, Democratic Governors, after we
approved H.R. 3630. They called for a swift passage of a 1-year
extension--not 2 months, 1 year. That's what the House bill does. And
what's more, that's what the Senate bill specifically rejects.
I urge that we vote to disagree with the Senate amendments and let's
get on to a conference. Let's resolve this this year so we can make
certainty in our Code, certainty for all of those people who are out of
work, and certainty for those seniors who need to see a physician--for
more than 2 months, but for 2 years.
[[Page H9974]]
December 15, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and
Representative Pelosi: We write to urge you to swiftly pass a
one-year extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Program (``EUC'') and 100% federal funding of the Extended
Benefits (``EB'') Program before they expire on December 31.
We are extremely concerned about the potential impact of
the expiration of these programs on families and our economic
recovery as a whole. Unless Congress extends these programs
before adjourning for the holidays, nearly 2 million
unemployed workers will lose this critical support in January
2012 alone. Now is not the time to turn our backs on hard-
working Americans. Individuals who are laid off through no
fault of their own rely on these funds to support their
families.
Extending unemployment insurance is a critical part of our
ability to speed up the economic recovery process.
Unemployment insurance benefits are immediately injected back
into the economy. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, federally extended unemployment insurance benefits
provide one of the best bangs for the buck in terms of
stimulating economic growth.
Congress has never failed to act on extending federal
unemployment insurance benefits when the unemployment rate
has exceeded 7.2%, and we must not fail our citizens now.
We urge immediate action to extend Emergency Unemployment
Compensation and 100% federal funds for the Extended Benefits
program through the end of 2012.
Sincerely,
Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois; Governor John Hickenlooper,
Colorado; Governor Jack Markell, Delaware; Governor
Steven L. Beshear, Kentucky; Governor Deval Patrick,
Massachusetts; Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York;
Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, California; Governor
Dannel P. Malloy, Connecticut; Governor Neil
Abercrombie, Hawaii; Governor Martin O'Malley,
Maryland; Governor Mark Dayton, Minnesota; Governor Bev
Perdue, North Carolina; Governor John A. Kitzhaber,
M.D., Oregon; Governor John deJongh, Jr., Virgin
Islands; Governor Peter Shumlin, Vermont; Governor
Chris Gregoire, Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate
Amendment to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act
of 2011.
Unfortunately, this isn't the legislation we will be voting on today.
The Majority has decided to side-step that bill, which passed the
Senate this weekend on a bipartisan 89-10 vote.
Instead, the House Majority's aim is to reopen negotiations in an
attempt to force the Senate to include in the bill many poison pill
provisions, like requiring a high school diploma to receive
unemployment benefits.
President Obama has said that the Senate's compromise bill is ``the
only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1.''
The legislation the Senate passed this weekend, and that we should be
considering today, would provide for a two-month extension of several
measures that will help keep our economy moving in the right direction.
These include extending unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, the
temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program, and preserving
the rate of Medicare payments to doctors.
Let me be clear Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill is a modest proposal at
best. However, extending these vital measures are necessary to keep our
economy moving forward and growing.
Failure to reach agreement is unacceptable. If we fail to pass the
Senate bill, 700,000 workers in Hawaii will see their paychecks shrink
and taxes increase in January. Nearly 3,000 people in Hawaii will lose
their unemployment benefits in January. Some 27,000 Hawaii families
will lose access to assistance that helps feed their children while
they seek new jobs. And we will unnecessarily be making it harder for
doctors to provide the care our seniors deserve.
Failing to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits wouldn't
just be irresponsible for workers and families--it would actually do
serious damage to our nation's economic growth.
In fact, independent economists forecast that failing to extend these
two measures could cost 1.3 million jobs.
Of course, the Senate's legislation is far from perfect. I regret
that we were unable to reach an agreement that would have extended
these measures for the entire year.
I also regret the House Majority's insistence on attempting to tie
these vital provisions to unnecessary and controversial ones.
I am glad the Senate has sent us a bill that removes some of the most
offensive poison pills--like slashing extended unemployment benefits to
40 weeks and ridiculous and probably unconstitutional changes to
eligibility requirements for those benefits--that passed the House last
week.
Despite these changes the Senate bill is very much a compromise. It
still includes a provision that would unnecessarily rush the
Administration's review and approval of the controversial 1,700 mile
long Keystone XL pipeline project.
I fail to see the benefit of rushing this decision. The President has
committed to ensuring that the State Department conducts a thorough
review of this project in order to determine the economic,
environmental, and public health impact it could have on our nation.
This is particularly prudent because the proposed route runs from
Canada to the Gulf Coast--directly through the center of our nation.
Its proposed route passes through the sensitive Sand Hills in Nebraska
and over the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer provides 30 percent of all
groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S., as well as drinking water
for millions of Americans.
The State Department has indicated that the earliest these necessary
reviews will be completed is 2013. Expediting this review process is
short-sighted, unwise, and could have serious negative implications for
future generations and media reports indicate that the Administration
will not approve the project under this tight timeline.
So despite this troublesome provision, I had intended to support the
Senate's bill.
The Majority's attempt to renegotiate this entire package is a waste
of time. We should come together to extend the relief that our workers
and their families deserve and return next year with a new focus on how
to move our economy forward.
With the holidays just days away, we owe families in Hawaii and the
American people at least that much.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Motion to Concur on H.R. 3630 ``Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2011.'' This legislation sends the right message at a
critical time for Americans.
The Senate passed a measure this past Saturday that, while not
perfect, will grant the American people the certainty they need as we
head into a new year. The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630 received
overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate. It passed by a margin of
89 to 10.
The Senate version would allow employees to continue to pay a 4.2
percent tax on wages, and the self-employed would only pay 10.4
percent; which represents a 2 percentage point tax cut.
This tax cut would provide a much-needed boost to the economy as
these tax savings could be used for investment, savings accounts, and
for the purchase of both goods and services. This kind of commercial
activity is what will keep the economy moving.
The Senate version would remove provisions in the bill that implies
that would stigmatize the unemployed by implying they use illegal
substances and penalizes those who must choose between paying rent or
taking job training courses. The Senate Amendment removes the onerous
unemployment provisions from H.R. 3630. Namely, the provisions that
would allow states to test those who apply for unemployment benefits
for illegal drugs and one that would require a GED, a high school
diploma, or attendance in a course to attain a GED prior to being able
to qualify for unemployment benefits.
In addition, the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes a $300 million
on a special interest provision. The provision, which had passed the
House, would only help a handful of specialty hospitals while resulting
in billions of dollars in cuts from community hospitals. The Senate
Amendment removes this poison pill. In effect, the Senate rejected this
assault on the elderly, the unemployed, and the middle class.
RULES COMMITTEE'S LAST MINUTE CHANGE TO THEIR AGENDA
Last evening the Rules Committee was originally scheduled to convene
an emergency meeting at 7:05 p.m. The purpose of their meeting was to
discuss a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630. I
arrived at the Rules Committee prepared to give testimony to buttress
my two amendments to the measure and to give my support to the Senate
Amendment to H.R. 3630.
The Committee would not accept my amendments and refused to accept
testimony; to add insult to injury they delayed the meeting from 7:05
p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Again, I was prepared to speak on the measure and my
amendments. To my surprise, the Rules Committee failed to discuss or
bring up the motion
[[Page H9975]]
to concur with the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630.
It is my belief that something must have occurred prior to and
immediately after the 7:05 p.m. meeting that would drastically change
Republicans' agenda. Because at 9:15 p.m. they brought up a completely
different agenda. I am both surprised and disappointed that the
Committee failed to address this issue head on and rather bent to
whatever pressures they received prior to meeting on the Senate
amendment.
My amendments would have made it clear that hedge fund managers would
finally be required to pay their due share of carried interest; they
would be required at minimum to pay the same amount in taxes, as their
house keepers.
In addition my second amendment would have ensured that millionaires
would also pay their fair share of taxes. Because of the actions of the
Rules Committee I never got the opportunity to express my support for
these important amendments, nor did I have the opportunity to support
the Senate amendment because of the drastic changes made to the Rules
Committee Agenda.
CERTAIN REPUBLICANS NEVER INTENDED TO SUPPORT A PAYROLL TAX CUT
There is little doubt that there have been factions within the
Republican party who have never intended to support a payroll tax cut
for middle class Americans. When the idea of a payroll tax cut began to
surface there was an instantaneous reaction against the idea among
certain conservative Republicans. The behavior of the Rules Committee,
which changed the agenda at the last minute, is a probable example of
these internal disagreements.
Less than two weeks ago a Tea Party Republican made it clear that he
did not support a payroll tax cut. In order to convince him to support
H.R. 3630 it seems that other provisions had to be added, provisions
like the keystone pipeline. This Tea Party Republican made it clear
``[Republican Leadership] certainly seems to be dragging me kicking and
screaming to the `yes' line''. Such is the comment of a Member of
Congress who wants us all to believe that he was undecided on a payroll
tax cut. I wonder how many promises had to be given before the American
middle class could be cut a break.
This position was also shared by a Senator, who is part of Senate
Republican Leadership. He voted four times against proposals to keep
the tax holiday. According to this Republican Leader ``We get paid to
vote . . .'' and he certainly did his duty and voted, he voted against
payroll tax cuts for the middle class. This would not be an example of
a person who was less than two weeks ago ready to be swayed.
Washington Republicans in general found themselves in a quandary.
Should they support a measure that would have protected provisions in
Medicare, extended unemployment, and provided a payroll tax cut or
stick to partisan politics. Washington Republicans apparently did not
believe that a break, which would have lowered the payroll tax from 6.2
percent to 4.3 percent would help job growth next year. Then there are
those who are more concerned with not giving the President a victory.
The victory would not be for the President, the victory who would be
for the American people. For the moms and dads who as a result of the
payroll cut would be able to buy their child a new pair of shoes, place
an additional meal on the table, or pay their rent.
It is not a surprise that those Republicans, who dug their heels into
the ground, long before today, are the very Republicans who are
allowing the American people to bear the brunt of this stalemate.
As passed in the House, H.R. 3630 had a list of poison pills which
would have harmed not only the health of Americans but the health of
the American economy.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Republicans had targeted the unemployed by slashing 40 weeks of
unemployment insurance. Such an action would have negatively impacted
the lives of millions of families. These are the very families who are
still struggling under the weight of the worst economic downturn since
the Great Depression. The Senate rejected this assault on the elderly
too.
Our failure to act on the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 would result
in twenty-two jurisdictions with the highest unemployment rates being
the hardest hit these states are: My home state of Texas, Alabama,
California, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and
Washington.
According to a report released by the Department of Labor just two
weeks ago, 3.3 million Americans would lose unemployment benefits as a
result of H.R. 3630 compared to a continuation of current law. In my
home state of Texas alone, 227,381 people will lose their sole source
of income by the end of January.
There is nothing normal about this recession. Republicans seem to
want to blame the unemployed for unemployment. But the truth is there
are over four unemployed workers for every available job, and there are
nearly 1 million fewer jobs in the economy today compared to when the
recession started in December 2007. In our nation's history there has
never been so many unemployed Americans without work for such a long
period of time. Republicans are clearly out of touch.
We must act now to extend unemployment insurance and remove dastardly
provisions related to drugs and education that do nothing more than
insult the integrity of the jobless. Currently, 9.8 million people are
receiving unemployment insurance in some form. We have 11 days to act.
On Dec. 31, federal unemployment insurance benefits are set to expire,
which means nearly 2 million will be cut off from unemployment
insurance early next year if Congress doesn't act now. Congress has
never allowed emergency unemployment benefits to expire when the
unemployment rate is anywhere close to its current level of 9.1
percent.
For every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, a study found an
increase in economic activity of two dollars. According to the Economic
Policy Institute that extending unemployment benefits could prevent the
loss of over 500,000 jobs. Further, a study by IMP AQ International and
the Urban Institute found unemployment insurance benefits reduced the
fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion
higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance
benefits.
If Congress fails to act before the end of the year, Americans who
have lost their jobs through no fault of their own will begin losing
their unemployment benefits in January. By mid-February, 2.1 million
will have their benefits cut off, and by the end of 2012 over 6 million
will lose their unemployment benefits.
THE IMPACT ON AMERICANS POISON PILLS IN H.R. 3630
The reforms to unemployment and other provisions that we sent over to
the Senate, sweeping as they were, may have been lost amid other
features of the Republican package.
Drug Testing
Under current law, states are not allowed to deny workers
unemployment insurance for reasons other than on-the-job misconduct,
fraud or earning too much money from part-time work. The drug testing
requirement in H.R. 3630 is burdensome and onerous. Unemployment is at
its highest in twenty-five years, the economy is in a downward spiral,
millions of people are just getting by and government wants to further
degrade them.
A worker advocacy group recently described the drug testing Element
in the House-passed bill, the ``most disturbing'' part of the
Republican unemployment reforms. ``Devising new ways to insult the
unemployed only distracts from the current debate over how to best
restore the nation's economy to strong footing and the discussion over
how to best support the unemployed and get them back to work''
There is no evidence to support that the average person who applies
for unemployment insurance is an illegal drug user. The inference that
those who need this benefit must be screened for drugs is offensive.
Hardworking Americans are depending on a benefit they worked to attain.
The Senate amendment to H.R. 3630 removes this offensive provision.
GED/HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA REQUIREMENT
In addition, the Senate amendment does not blame the unemployed for
being unemployed. By this I mean, the version of H.R. 3630 which passed
the House would deny unemployment benefits to individuals who did not
have or were not attempting to attain a high school diploma or a GED.
As supported by House Republicans, H.R. 3630 denies unemployment
insurance benefits to the most vulnerable workers, those without a high
school diploma or GEDs, if they can't demonstrate they are enrolled in
a program leading to a credential. Workers with less than a high school
diploma are unemployed at significantly higher rates than workers with
a bachelor's degree (13.2 percent v. 4.4 percent).
I understand the rationale behind wanting to advance the skills of
our nation's work force. Believe me the hardships faced by those who
have not attained a GED or high school diploma are indisputable. The
labor force participation rate for persons without a high school
diploma is 20 percentages points lower than the labor force
participation rate for high school graduates.
Nationally, approximately 70 percent of all students graduate from
high school, but African-American and Hispanic students have a 55
percent or less chance of graduating from high school.
If this measure passes as written, African- Americans and Hispanics
who are already the hardest hit by this economic downturn will now lose
access to employment benefits at a greater rate, solely based upon
their educational attainment. This just does not seem fair.
[[Page H9976]]
Only 52 percent of students in the 50 largest cities in the United
States graduate from high school. That rate is below the national high
school graduation rate of 70 percent, and also falls short of the 60
percent average for urban districts across the Nation. Over his or her
lifetime, a high school dropout earns, on average, about $260,000 less
than a high school graduate, and about $1 million less than a college
graduate.
I vehemently disagree with how H.R. 3630 chooses to address
increasing the skills of our workforce. I do not believe we should
blame those who for a variety of reasons were not able to attain a high
school diploma or GED. We should not punish them by excluding them from
benefits that they have earned! We should be focused on programs to
encourage and retrain our workforce. Programs like those offered by
organizations like the National Urban League.
Medicaid
My colleagues on the other side in H.R 3630 had singled out Medicare
premium increases that would have permanently increase seniors' costs
by $31 billion. The Senate Amendment addresses the Medicare Sustainable
Growth Rate (SGR), extending physician payment rates and preventing a
27.4% cut through February 29th; and it addresses Medicare and Medicaid
Extenders policies through February 29th as well. It also includes a
simple extension of TANF through February 29th. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates changes to Medicare under the Republican budget
plan will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase
costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people in Texas
who received Medicare in 2010.
H.R. 3630 would result in significant changes to Medicaid,
threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of
them children that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant
for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the
cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the
program.
Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in
Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the
citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between
500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people
who may not have access to healthcare under this budget.
If there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to
people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be
unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a
means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts
of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children.
Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been
tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type
of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are
created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term
unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when
there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has
been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.
I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. We cannot now,
or ever, allow partisan politics to keep us from addressing the needs
of American families, the unemployed and seniors. I encourage my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to drop these harmful policy
riders and support the Senate amendment to H.R. 3630.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, just last week I came to the floor and spoke
to the need for this body to prevent a tax increase for 160 million
American workers. Yet today, the House Majority is actually voting to
raise taxes for middle class families. Under their plan taxes go up on
January 1, 2012 for 160 million workers, unemployment benefits expire
and seniors lose access to their doctors. I am voting to prevent that
from happening. They can claim all they want they support tax relief
for middle class families, but today they are rejecting the compromise
that passed the U.S. Senate with broad bipartisan support and that
could be signed into law by President Obama. Instead of helping pass
this real bipartisan compromise, the House Majority is claiming they
want to help ordinary people even as their actions show otherwise. The
American people will pay the price with higher taxes next year. Members
of the Majority opposed this tax cut for middle class Americans a year
ago and they are even more opposed to its extension now.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, what has happened today would be
comical if it weren't so damaging to our nation's middle-class.
Mr. Speaker, the American People need to know the facts:
The fact is, Mr. Speaker is that this body passed a tax cut bill that
they knew would not make it through the other body
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the other body, in about as bipartisan
a manner as this 112th Congress has ever seen, voted overwhelmingly to
pass a two month extension of the payroll tax cut so that taxes would
not go up for millions of Americans on the 1st of January.
The fact is, instead of passing this common-sense legislation which
would have bought time for a comprehensive full year extension of the
payroll tax cut to be negotiated, the GOP-led House would not allow a
vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Majority has instead decided to kill the payroll tax
cut altogether and not buy Congress time for a comprehensive deal.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that when it's time to let tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires to expire, the Republicans will show the
same callous disregard they have shown our nations struggling middle-
class.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I will vote today against this motion to
go to conference with Senate and in support of the two-month payroll
tax cut extension. While it is not perfect, it is a reasonable
compromise that will help people make ends meet while we continue to
work on a longer-term solution.
The fact is that Democrats and Republicans have been working at
finding such a solution for several weeks, and this is the best we can
do at this time. As we have done at other times this year, notably with
the debt limit vote in August, we have an opportunity to do something
for the good of the country on a short-term basis. While this is not
ideal, I believe approving a two-month extension is better than letting
the payroll tax reduction and unemployment benefits expire while
Medicare reimbursements to doctors are cut dramatically, which will
have negative effects for our fragile economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan compromise was overwhelmingly approved
in the Senate and includes several provisions that Republicans worked
hard to include, such as requiring President Obama to make a decision
on the Keystone pipeline within 60 days. It will provide relief to
individuals and families who need it and support for the overall
economy. This is not the time to draw lines in the sand. I urge my
Republican colleagues to let the House consider the two-month extension
today and to vote in support of it. Then we can continue to work on how
to extend this relief through the duration of 2012.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I oppose motions regarding a conference
because I do not support any of the costly proposals to extend the
temporary payroll ``holiday,'' which destabilizes the Social Security
Trust Fund and does nothing to enact the needed long-term structural
reforms necessary to right our fiscal state of ship.
Our country is going broke. The national debt is over $15 trillion.
It is projected to reach $17 trillion next year and $21 trillion in
2021. We have annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion. We have
unfunded obligations and liabilities of $62 trillion.
The Social Security Actuary has said that by 2037 the trust fund will
be unable to pay full benefits. This means that everyone will receive
an across the board cut of 22 percent, regardless of how much money
they paid into the system.
Washington is dysfunctional. After months of passionately debating
the importance of reducing the deficit, the President and Congress are
now advocating for a policy that's barely, if at all, improved our
economic outlook and further contributes to our crushing debt burden.
My floor statement from December 13, which I have reposted on my Web
site, further explains my opposition to the underlying legislation.
During his 1796 farewell address, George Washington admonished his
fellow countrymen: ``We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon
posterity the burden of which we ourselves ought to bear.'' The
Congress should heed his advice.
I voted ``no'' on this policy last December. I voted ``no'' on this
policy last week. And I vote ``no'' today.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment
to H.R. 3630. Working Americans cannot wait another minute for Congress
to make up its mind and act. The country and its people are ill-served
by the House leadership's inability to make up its mind. The economy
and its future, as well as our credit rating, are being severely
impaired by leadership's failure to lead in finding a solution to this
problem and Republicans' followership to follow and support such
solution.
While the Senate's solution is less than perfect, it's a desperately
needed start. Our failure to prevent an increase in payroll taxes and
the expiration of unemployment benefits will cut the legs out from
under our country's economic recovery.
[[Page H9977]]
To be clear, I am not at all comforted by the Senate's compromise on
extending unemployment benefits. By not addressing the contentious
``look-back'' issue, it is all but certain that states with
persistently high unemployment rates that have improved very
marginally--like my home state of Michigan--will all of a sudden find
themselves ineligible for emergency federal benefits. As far as I'm
concerned, that's like taking a sick person's medicine away because
he's gotten slightly better.
That's not to say the bill is all bad. The Senate amendment to H.R.
3630 also extends for two months the critical section 508 hospital
reclassification and will allow us more time to find a workable and
sustainable solution to the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate
reimbursement levels.
I urge my colleagues--particularly those on the other side of the
aisle--to do the right thing by the American people and vote in favor
of the Senate's amendment to H.R. 3630. The House leadership cannot
continue to move the goalposts every time Congress appears close to a
deal. The GOP strategy of trying to keep America down to win elections
endangers the country, our people, and our future.
In short, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and
punish hardworking Americans in the process. We cannot in good
conscience go home to our districts for the holidays without passing
this bill and committing to coming back here in March to enact a full
one-year extension of UI benefits, the payroll tax cuts, and Medicare
physician reimbursement rates.
The Congress's dithering around has brought us to the brink again,
but we have an opportunity to salvage this situation tonight. We will
be foolish to let it pass us by.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to tell my fellow
Americans that House Republicans have declared a war on the holidays.
By refusing to allow an up or down vote on the payroll tax cut
extension passed by the Senate, my Republican colleagues are putting
lumps of coal in everyone's Christmas stockings, and taking away their
Hanukkah gelt. We in Congress cannot in good conscience go home for the
holidays until we ensure that our constituents can celebrate with their
families instead of feeling like the Grinch stole all their presents.
We have a measure in place which nine out of every ten Senators--both
Democrats and Republicans--agreed to. We have a measure in place that
the President, over his own wishes, has said he will sign into law. We
have a measure that the majority of my Caucus is ready to support. Why
are we waiting?!
Mr. Speaker, today I urge to my colleagues to join me in support of a
true payroll tax cut and unemployment extension. I urge them to join me
in supporting the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630. I urge them to join
members of their own Caucus, and most of all I urge them to join the
American public.
We've been down this road before. What President Obama is for, the
Republicans are against; and whatever the President is against, they
are for. The Republicans are not looking out for the American people,
Mr. Speaker--they are only looking out for their own selfish interests
and for their stated goal of defeating President Obama in 2012.
Let's put an end to these games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not give 160
million Americans a $1,000 tax hike, let's not take away the
unemployment benefits of 2.2 million Americans, and let's not block 48
million seniors' access to their doctors.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support a one-year extension of
the payroll tax holiday, unemployment insurance and protecting seniors'
access to their Medicare physician. However, both Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate of the United States voted overwhelmingly to
extend these expiring provisions for two months, so that Congress might
have adequate time to negotiate a longer term extension for the
American people. House Republicans' refusal to vote on the Senate
compromise puts at risk American middle class families at a time when
we must do all that we can do to support them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 946]
YEAS--229
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--193
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Bachmann
Buchanan
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Johnson, E. B.
Olver
Paul
Schrader
Woolsey
[[Page H9978]]
{time} 1256
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Ms. HAHN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 946, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________